Are You Kidding Me?

So, now, I would like to applaud the press for finally waking up and/or growing a pair and doing things like research, asking questions, comparing previous statements to current claims... but you all are about 7 years too late.

The scrutiny over the Clinton selection is killing me. I swear, this is the first time this decade that anyone besides Jon Stewart realized you could go back and pull up old footage of politicians contradicting themselves. You know what, it's irrelevant in this case. I think we're all adult enough to understand there are certain requirements in a campaign and that attacking your opponent is one of them. This pose of bewilderment that Obama would turn around and pick competant, experienced team members who ran against him is just ridiculous.

Where was this magic recording and playback technology when the Bush administration was saying they didn't say there was a link between al Quaeda and Iraq before the war? I could list any number of other examples, but I think we all have our own favorites.

So, why are they doing this? Is it practice because they can't remember how to be journalists so they are starting with something stupid and meaningless? Is it just the continuation of the virulent anti-Hilary sentiment? Or are there not enough kidnapped white girls to fill the 24 hour cycle?

Send a (hundred) Message(s) to Obama

Maybe I am having selective memory, but I can not remember a point in my lifetime when so many organizations were mobilizing their members to sign a positive petition and send a supportive message to the President. I keep being amazed about the pent up desire to make a difference that has been let loose in the past few days.

So far, I've been solicited by:
MoveOn.org
the WE Campaign
Avaaz

I think I'm going to start feeling silly about it soon, but for now it's still pretty awesome.

Yes We Can, Now We Must

I've heard a lot of people worried that Obama can only fail to live up to the lofty expectations we've set for him. His reference that we can't solve our many current crises in a year or even a term touched on that as well. But as I think about it and talk to everyone I know who is so happy and full of hope, I realize that these are expectations we've also set for ourselves. As much as we want from Obama, he's already given us the most important thing we need - Hope. I know so many people laugh at this campaign theme as naive and insubstantial, but it's what we really need now.

We've been through nearly a decade of evidence that our best efforts and intentions get us nowhere. For those who opposed Bush, we saw our voting franchise ignored twice and an administration that lied and trashed all the institutions of our democracy while we, the people and our (should be) surrogates in the media raged impotently. In the face of a great tragedy, our Commander-in-Chief asked us not to sacrifice and pitch in, but to shop. He later hid the very real sacrifices made daily by our soldiers from the public eye and consciousness. In the wake of a Katrina, the government abandoned an entire city and, again, made no call for the country to band together and help our fellow Americans. In the face of a mounting oil crisis, there was no call to abandon our gas guzzlers, no pumping of tax dollars into public transportation infrastructure to help make that possible.

Now we have a leader who will lead us, as us to sacrifice, challenge us to innovate, and create the kind of public discourse that allows us to show the best we all have to offer.

McCain on SNL v2

You know, John McCain's appearance on Saturday Night Live this week was so much better than the last time, it made me wish he'd hurry up and lose and go back to being the John McCain we all used to like.

Campbell Brown Rules

I don't pay much attention to the relatively interchangeable pretty people who read the "news" on the 24 hour channels, but lately Campbell Brown has been rocking my world. First, she called out the real Palin-related sexism (that she was being shielded like a fragile flower from the big, mean media) amid all the wolf-crying from the right. Now she proves she's objectively calling it like she sees it by putting her foot down about the ridiculous storm that has sprung up around Palin's very expensive wardrobe. Both Feministing and Broadsheet has some interesting dissection of the wardrobe and Brown's point.

As usual, I tend to agree with Rebecca Traister of Broadsheet

I didn't think it was sexist when it broke as a mini-story (see also: Edwards' haircut, Kerry's botox, McCain's 15 houses) but the four-day fetishization is pushing me to: Move along, folks, the lady bought too many expensive clothes. Nothing to see here. And can't help but feel that the gawking would be less intense and prolonged if it were about a man's wardrobe.

I was really surprised (and annoyed/bored) at the fact that this was a big story for days. I mean, seriously? I understand it's highly symbolic of the gross hypocrisy of Republican pandering to "Joe Six Pack" while all the while supporting legislation that hurts the average American on taxes, public services and health care. But, seriously, that's what they are literally doing - so we don't need to harp on the symbol. How about actually harping on the facts? How about the fact that misogynistic rage dripped out of McCain's mouth as he snarls "health of the woman" in the last debate? How about the fact that McCain dismisses a tax package that benefits the vast majority of working Americans as "socialism"?

Then again, the so-called comedy stylings of the candidates got at least as much press, so I guess you can't expect much when you have to fill 24 hours a day.

Women Matter: Getting Regular Women Engaged in Politics

Last week, I lamented that Palin Fever seemed to have exposed a real disconnect between feminism (or more generally, all people working on behalf of women in politics) and the "woman on the Street." The fact that hordes of women were flocking to throw their support and adulation behind a woman who has no track record of actually helping their situation in meaningful ways first horrified me, then made me sad that somehow our message had gotten lost to these women, even alienated them.

But hooray for Smith College! The current issue of the Alumnae Quarterly is focused on politics and the campaign and featured Women Matter, a site founded by Smith alum Nancy W. Bauer specifically to engage women in the political process by discussing the links and impact of policy on what they call Life Issues. It's a non-partisan site that seeks to clearly lay out the issues and explain the various possible remedies. Each Life Issues section also ends with concrete action a woman can take - from the simple act of registering to vote, to how you can get informed of your local and national representatives' positions, to contacting those representatives to tell them where you stand.

I think this is just fabulous. After all, I can understand how someone not brought up or educated in an environment of political participation or activism would fall prey to the cynical view that your votes doesn't even matter or that the only ways to engage are through specific interest groups. With these simple, personal, concrete steps, I think any woman can get involved and start to build confidence in their voice and that it carries weight in the process.

Unfortunately, I really hadn't heard of them before this. I'm hoping this is my own ignorance, since I really think this is an organization that ought to be a reference for everyone from the TV Talking Heads to high school Civics teachers and, of course, individual women.

Rachel Maddow: Keeping me Sane since 2008

So, I have had a kind of crush on Rachel Maddow since Feministing clued me in early last month. But nothing could prepare me for the overwhelming rush of love and happiness she brought on, when I sat down with my TiVo last night, after my day of great Palin-induced feminist/existential angst. Just being able to turn on the TV and see an example of a smart, funny woman in this prime time boys club chair restored my faith in the progress women have made... as well as the progress men have made in adapting and honestly embracing a new reality instead of fighting it or pandering to it. And, let's face it, Rachel Maddow is more than TV-level attractive, she's just plain hot, and she would probably have to stick to radio if that weren't the case, but no one is judging her competence based on her "sexy librarian" look or telling her she has to "put on a skirt" to be successful.

So, please, read Rebecca Trainster's profile, then Watch The Rachel Maddow Show and rejoice.

No, The Political is Personal

Over my work-related period of radio silence, a LOT has happened. Well, really one thing - Sarah Palin. My initial reaction was to laugh out loud - the tone deaf choice of an unknown, un-vetted, completely unqualified women just to un-subtly lure those crazy old leftie ladies who were still grumbling about Obama winning over Hilary? Literally, could McCain's campaign go anymore horribly off track?
But her immediate and aggressive acceptance among right-wingers started to shake my convictions that this was the last nail in the coffin. It was a bait-and-switch! She's not really there as a Hilary replacement (though she is certainly bouyed by the energy and conversation created by Hilary), she's there to energize the base, to allow Republicans to actually like their ticket. And worse yet, she's their Obama. Just as Obama brought many previous non-voters from ubran and working class backgrounds into the fold, Palin is the kind of candidate who appeals to the Red State "little guys" who have been seriously sidelined since the loss of Huckabee. I cringed, I got worried, but it's all still politics and the game can change at any minute. And, let's remember, as much as the outcome is deadly serious, this part is still just a game.
Then two articles I read today brought up a far deeper sense of dread. In the Washington Post's piece on the way that Palin has become the new fluffy celebrity, this campaign's Paris Hilton, a woman on the street is quoted as putting forth the mind-exploding idea that

"She exemplifies what a genuine feminist is," said Elizabeth Hauris, who owns a company that manufactures cloth diapers. "She's pro-life, pro-family, nurses her son, carries him in a sling, which epitomizes the idea of close attachment."

Actually, that's nearly exactly the opposite, honey. Feminism is supposed to be about women NOT being strapped to their babies (literally or figuratively) and I'd venture that if there are only two things all feminists agree on, one of them is that we necessarily must be pro-choice.

This kind of co-opting of this campaign's legitimate suge of feminism was annoying when it came from talking heads and GOP aparatchik, but it's absolutely terrifying when it comes from the ground up. Rebecca Traister, as always, have an insightful and balanced take on this new zombie feminism.

In this strange new pro-woman tableau, feminism -- a word that is being used all over the country with regard to Palin's potential power -- means voting for someone who would limit reproductive control, access to healthcare and funding for places like Covenant House Alaska, an organization that helps unwed teen mothers. It means cheering someone who allowed women to be charged for their rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla, who supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, who has inquired locally about the possibility of using her position to ban children's books from the public library, who does not support the teaching of sex education.

She goes on to say "But if we inadvertently paved the way for this, then the Democratic Party mixed the concrete, painted lanes on the road, put up streetlights and called it an interstate. The role of the left in this travesty is almost too painful to contemplate just yet." But, the thing is we have to contemplate it NOW.

We need to take a hard look at why these women feel alienated by real feminism (or the strange, fractured version that trickles down to them through the media) and why they are starving for validation of their more traditional choices. While we've all been fighting at the far edges, pushing our rights further and further towards equal, the Right swooped in an co-opted the middle ground. Smart Women Everywhere are already debating whether ironic cupcake baking is good or bad, but most women are still struggling through the real life choices of work and motherhood and how far expectations and mores have changed in just a single generation. We've left these women behind, we haven't done the best service by them because we barely even see them and they barely even see us. Their idea of "feminism" has been so distorted by everything from FOX News to Saved By The Ball and the Pussycat Dolls that it's no wonder so many young women, who are actively reaping the benefits of feminism, don't even know it and outright reject that label.

This is not to say the front line should fall back, it is vitally important that we keep pushing forward. But we have to shore up the rear, too. We have to ensure that women who choose to take on more traditional roles for themselves feel included and can see how much we are already helping them with work and pay issues, health care and family leave issues, and other day-to-day concerns. And it's possible - after all, don't we all know women who are in just that position? Women who did choose to scale back or leave work all together when they first had children, but who are no less feminism because it and already enjoy the validation of their choices by the friend family and peers?
We have to make sure that we don't lump all career moms into one big basket of scorn and pity in an effort to avoid taking steps backward. It's going to mean a lot of work - teasing out the signs from the signified, putting out messages for everyone along the path, and still knowing when to fight hard against the Palins of the world who want to force us into a state of choicelessness - but it's clearly time to start digging in before feminism becomes any more diluted and convoluted.

Wyatt Cenac is AWESOME

Just last week, a friend and I were discussing the best new cast member of The Daily Show in a loooong time - Wyatt Cenac. This guys rules. It's always hard to explain "funny" but we boiled it down to a slightly unexpected perspective and a willingness to go the extra foot (as opposed to the extra mile and ruin the whole thing). We were specifically discussing his bit where he visited a Jewish retirement community in Florida to talk about that demographic's resistance to Obama. I couldn't help but wonder if he would sputter out or have his creativity squelched, but last night reassured me that this guy is going to be great for a long time.

Listen to the Money Talk

Obama has been making a point of talking about the transformative impact the internet has had on politics. His campaign is a great example of how many individuals donating normal amounts of money can have as much of an impact or more than a big political machine. Well, here's another way you can put your small dollars to work in our democracy - buy an ad speaking out against warrantless wiretapping. Thanks to SaysMe's strategy of buying ad air time in bulk and then reselling in bite sized units (kind of like how TerraPass allows individuals to participate in the carbon exchange market), you can pay from $6-$600 (depending on channel and air time) to run this ad.

Also interesting is comparing the rates for different channels - particularly CNN vs MSNBC vs Fox News. CNN is clearly the big gun of that pack.

Since When is Art Supposed to be Apolitical?

CNN is reporting that pro-gun groups are up in arms about the new art exhibit Wounded in America, now on display in Los Angeles. The exhibit uses words an images to display the tragic results of gun violence - including accidental, intentional and even self targets. The stated aim is to raise awareness of how dangerous guns are and the kind of damage they can cause. Obviously, pro-gun groups are not going to enjoy this type of exhibit, but the statements made in the CNN story were so ridiculous, trying to invalidate the whole exhibit on the grounds it is "politically motivated." Well, so what if it is? Isn't art always inherently from a specific perspective and usually trying to make certain points? Why should "Guns are dangerous and cause harm" be any less valid than "These images are merely symbols and not reality"?

No more Rape or Racists?

Oh, good, I'm glad we got rid of rape and that there aren't any more racists in America. I mean, that must be why we don't get to use those ugly words anymore, right?

Yes, Sweetie is a Medium Deal

I've been mulling the whole "sweetie" incident over the past few days and I've come to the conclusion it's kind of a big deal. Not a feeding frenzy Big Deal or a campaign-derailing Big Deal, but a good teaching moment. I think Broadsheet nailed it:

Someone could call a professional woman "sweetie" and mean it in an avuncular, affectionate, non-harming way -- the way Barack Obama no doubt meant to deploy it. But just because a word is not meant as an offense, does not mean that it isn't diminishing, paternalistic and disrespectful.

I have no doubt that Obama will do good things for working families and the working poor (who are disproportionately women), and this in no way diminishes that. Policies and ideology are more important, in terms of choosing a candidate, than personal quirks and imperfections. But, just like I correct anyone who says, "That's gay," in my presence, the point should be made that perpetuating even unconscious sexism ought to be avoided.