Immoral Majority

FISA? Liberties, smiberties!

2008-07-10T05:20:00Z

The Senate voted today to re-write the nation's FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law, which used to protect Americans from unlawful government eavesdropping but now codifies George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program revealed by the New York Times in December 2005. Read more about the bill here.

I recently heard a piece on NPR in which the reporter asked people on the street whether they thought such changes to FISA was a good idea. Too many of them said sure, if it means the government will be better equipped to fight the evil terrorists and keep us safe. One person said, "I don't mind if the government listens in on my phone calls or reads my emails. I haven't done anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide. If it'll keep us safe, I'm all for it."

Government searches of my private affairs? Public officials censoring what I say or write? Lawmakers making decisions about what types of medical procedures I can have? No problem! I have nothing to hide!!

To paraphrase that wonderful quote by Benjamin Frankin: Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither.

Barack Obama, despite teaching constitutional law and editing the Harvard Law Review -- and despite vowing to filibuster the bill if it contained retroactive immunity for telecoms who allowed the government to spy on its customers (it passed with this provision) -- voted for the bill. Apparently he doesn't see much need for the Constitution or its civil liberties either.

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted against the bill today.

Senators Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas

2008-07-02T00:55:00Z

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time ever on a Second Amendment case. After years of political debate about the true meaning of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” the Court finally and definitively declared that the amendment does indeed guarantee an individual’s right to bear (carry) arms (guns, and in this case, handguns), as opposed to the alternate school of thought that “a well regulated militia” meant, well, the right of a militia—or a collective body, such as an army—to bear arms. The ruling jeopardizes states’ ability to regulate weapons in exactly the ways they see fit according to the types of unique crimes under which they suffer.

The Senate must be thrilled to have five new Republican members among its ranks, because I haven’t seen such a grand example of legislating from the bench in years. And the hypocrisy! It’s the best example seen of that since Barack We-Need-Change-in-Washington Obama’s flip-flop on eschewing federal funding so he can raise scores more millions of dollars in an already record-breaking presidential campaign. In their decision, these new senators became magically, uniquely enlightened to interpreting the Framers’ intent. And who would have guessed that it just happens to suit their own conservative ideologies?

We’ve heard these same "senators" complain of liberal judges legislating from the bench before. They’ve even accused their own colleagues of doing so, such as when the Court saw in the Constitution a right to bodily privacy and integrity (see Roe v. Wade, granting abortion rights) and the right to relationship privacy, such as the freedom to have sex with whomever you want, gay or straight, without being thrown in jail (see Lawrence v. Kansas, outlawing all remaining sodomy laws, most of which were used to target homosexual activity). Such decisions have been increasingly derided—and cited in Republican political campaigns—as judicial attempts to impose a liberal orthodoxy on the masses. Stop legislating from the bench! Why can’t judges just judge? Why must they carve out specific individual rights at will where no such rights clearly exist in the Constitution? That’s not what our Framers wanted!

Well nowhere in the Second Amendment do you see the words “individual.” And if by “the people” the Framers really meant individuals, wouldn’t they have said just “people,” as the “the” seems to indicate a collective body, like the right of “the Senate” vs. the right of “Senators”?

Sens. Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas crafted their opinion in precisely the way they want public policy on gun control and gun rights changed. Legislating from the bench, indeed.

At Least a Good Gay Milestone

2008-06-17T05:29:00Z

Today California became the second state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The first couple to legally wed was Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, who have been together for over 50 years. They won't live long enough to see the first woman president, but thankfully they lived long enough for the right to marry the person they love. A sweet consolation this political season, and the perfect kickoff to June Pride activities.

Striving While Female

2008-06-06T23:51:00Z

(Caution, it’s a long one. You knew it was coming…)

My friends and I cried while we watched Hillary give her final victory speech Tuesday night after her 10-point come-from-behind victory in South Dakota. (She got undeserved flack for her lack-of-concession speech that night. Why should she have conceded then? She’d just finished the primary season winning 8 of the last 12 contests and with more total popular votes—yes, because Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot in Michigan and, together with Congressman John Conyers, embarked on a well-organized “vote uncommitted” campaign—than Obama or any Democratic presidential nominee in history. She deserved her right to thank her supporters, remind people of her victories, and to demand respect and visibility for the 18 million people who voted for her.) We cried because we were witnessing dreams fallen short--thwarted by the forces of youthful and blissful ignorance, betrayed loyalties, and the fascination with shiny, new, good-looking, sweet-talking things--with severe doubts that we’d ever see a woman in the White House in our lifetimes.

I’ve been finding slight solace in the fact that since Tuesday night, the punditocracy and blogosphere has been fixated most loudly not so much on Obama’s historic position, but on Hillary—what will she do next? What went wrong? When will she concede?

A top question has been, “Did she lose because of sexism?” Of course, everyone rushes to say “no” because, well, it just isn’t cool to face the fact that sexism does still exist and still hurts women in our society. I think sexism played a huge role. Even if you posit that it didn’t cause a direct role—it wasn’t sexism per se that caused her to lose—it is certainly true that the sexism exhibited toward Hillary by much of the media and many in the public (think of those Hillary nutcrackers and the “Iron my shirt, bitch” brigades) created unfavorable and unfair images of her in the public’s mind. Those biased images portrayed and peddled by the media have a very real impact on those people who don’t follow politics as closely as political junkies like me. They don’t watch the debates in full, don’t tune in for the candidates’ interviews on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. All they know of Hillary are the out-of-context clips on MSNBC accompanied by the biased framing of people like Keith Olberman who time and time again portrayed her as conniving, calculating, shrill, kitchen-sink-throwing, untruthful, and unlikeable to a majority of Americans. If you don’t believe me, ask many Obama supporters—these are many of the reasons they give for why Obama would make a better general election candidate, as told to me personally by Obama-supporting friends and by fellow delegates at my caucus meetings. When I ask them “did you watch the whole debate” or “did you actually see or read the entire interview,” most times the answer was no. So where do those opinions come from? They spread and fester like viruses, and the media has been the greatest delivery system for that virus. And as the public starts regurgitating these false impressions, those who govern them and need their votes—i.e., superdelegates—take their cues and throw their support behind the candidate who best safeguards their own best political interests.

If you’re skeptical of the media’s sexist treatment of Hillary and sexist behavior in general, check out this great (in an awful way) montage created by the Women’s Media Center: Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying.

Then read this fantastic post by Judith Warner of the New York Times, proclaiming that Hillary’s ultimate crime was “Striving While Female.”

Why were common attitudes about her in the media and by the public sexist? Not just because they talked about Hillary in ways they never talk about men (constant references to the pantsuit, or the cackling and nagging voice, or doubts about how anyone could support someone who stayed married to a philandering husband), but because there is no way in this world our citizens or our media would have tolerated such treatment of Obama. From Warner’s piece:

"Stephen is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so.

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime."

The biggest thing that burns me, and most women I know who support her, is that if a woman of Obama’s history and qualifications had tried to run for president, there’s absolutely no way she would have won the nomination or even have been in the running. Geraldine Ferraro is not racist, she was right. Obama was lucky. There’s little doubt that such a woman would even have tried to run, conditioned as we are not to believe in ourselves. We don’t think we can aspire to such great heights, at least not without first enduing years of working our way tediously and obediently up the ladder (which, by the way, was the exact approach Hillary took when first entering the Senate eight years ago). A more perfect example of sexism cannot be found.

It’s hard to get over this sting. But I draw a lot of strength and courage and grace from the example Hillary has set , and I hope a lot of other little girls, young women, and all women do, too.

One thing I’m sure of: Hillary will still get my vote in November, when I write her in on my ballot.

The Winning Loser?

2008-05-14T05:13:00Z

It's amazing how the candidate declared the loser in the Democratic nomination race by the media and virtually all self-proclaimed experts (after coming from behind to win one race and losing a race she had long been trailing anyway) can, just one week later, win a contest by a whopping 41% and over 144,400 votes as I write this (with 98% reporting)--and still be proclaimed an impossible winner.

If the superdelegates are going to live up to their responsibility as party wise women and men--versus protecting what they perceive are their own political fortunes--they will do well to heed the argument and facts laid out so clearly in this piece, "Hillary Clinton Must Be the Democratic Nominee; Do the Math." No one is talking much about the electoral college these days, but as this piece points out, that's the only race that matters now, and this year's primary season makes it very clear that Hillary is the party's best chance at winning in November.

It felt so good to see her win every single precinct in the West Virginia primary tonight, in spite of everyone telling her to drop our or claiming there's virtually no way for her to win the nomination. Her victory is so sweet, it helps wipe away the sad reality of the subtle and overt sexism that has permeated the media coverage and popular reaction to her candidacy. This fact is not getting reported on and repudiated enough in this race. While everyone is very quick to single out polls that reflect the number of voter for whom race is an issue that would prevent them (or "someone you know") from voting for a black candidate, it's somehow not important or relevant to call to task those who judge and attack Clinton based on her gender.

I think when this race is long over--no matter who makes it on to the general election--we'll look back and see that Hillary is the strongest, most capable female candidate we could have ever had, and the closest this country will ever be for years and years to come at electing a woman president. And if you read Dee Dee Myers' fabulous new book, Why Women Should Rule the World, you'll understand that the change Hillary's presidency would bring about in this country would be much greater and more revolutionary than any Obama could ever promise--even on his best speech day before his biggest, most hysterical audience.

Will the superdelegates please wise up?

Spin Free and Smart as Hell

2008-05-01T04:43:00Z

Rather than comment on the ubiquitous bus-throwing-under events of this week (this Boston Globe piece sums it up pretty well), let's focus on something extremely surprising and enthralling--Hillary's appearance tonight in Bill O'Reilly's "Spin-Free Zone." She did so fantastically that it even prompted an Obama supporter after tonight's interview to quip, "If she can handle you, Bill, she can handle any rogue nation!" and "I think you have a bit of a crush on her."

My favorite comment, though, was Dennis Miller's sadly accurate observation regarding O'Reilly's asking Clinton if she was surprised that her campaign was getting the most favorable coverage by Fox News vs. MSNBC and NBC(paraphrasing here): "I find it very ironic that it's a vast left-wing conspiracy that's trying to do Hillary in."

The interview airs in four parts over two nights. Part 1 and Part 2 aired today.

She was brilliant. While watching her unparalleled command of facts, history, public policy, political savvy, I couldn't stop thinking of what an unmoderated debate between Clinton and Obama would look like should he accept her challenge (which he won't). If he does, it would make this week's Jeremiah Wright flap look like a painless game of Go Fish.

Sweet

2008-04-24T00:56:00Z

Hillary blasted Obama out of the water in Pennsylvania's primary yesterday, and it was a victory so sweet, so deserved, and so hopeful. Despite being outspent by Obama 3 to 1, she won by almost 10 points and by over 200,000 votes. Not only did she hold her key constituencies, she expanded her grip on them and dug into Obama's -- look at the final numbers by demographics. They are astounding and should give Democrats true pause for thought as to who is really the best candidate in the general election.

She raised $3.5 million overnight and by the end of today, according to a conference call I attended today in which Hillary spoke, she'll have an amazing $10 million, in part from over 60,000 new donors. But she still needs more--donate.

The best part of the night--along with the true hope I really started to feel for a Hillary presidency--was her wonderful acceptance speech. So eloquent, intelligent, confident, and powerful, it shows so clearly why not only she deserves our vote, but why this country needs her leadership.

Loving Mother

2008-04-22T03:51:00Z

Tomorrow, April 22, is a very important day. Most importantly, they all relate to my mother:

1. My mother's birthday: happy birthday, Mom--my inspiration.

2. Earth Day: everyone must love their mother earth. It always falls on my mom's birthday. Green is my mom's favorite color, "verdant" her favorite word.

3. The Pennsylvania primary: go Hillary!! Strong women are unafraid and never back down. Hillary, like my mom, was an active feminist of the 60s and 70s.

4. Equal Pay Day: this is the day this year on which women's wages catch up to men's wages in 2007. This is so because, lest you forget, women are still paid less than men for the same work they do. As of 2007, women earn only $0.77 for every $1 a man makes (for black women, it's just $0.68, and for Latinas, just $0.57). Who says women and feminism have come far enough?

That all these things are happening on my mom's birthday is no mere coincidence. It is a tribute to her, so Happy Birthday, Mom (although you are vacationing in Europe right now and likely won't read this for another week)!

And go Hillary--here's hoping the people of Pennsylvania--which include most of my father's side of the family--are as smart as the people in places like Massachusetts, where most of my wife's family lives.

And Jay Cost--keep writing your brilliant, insightful pieces.

Must-Reads

2008-04-16T03:19:00Z

"Bitter-gate," as it's now being frequently referred to, has induced so much rich writing, opining, theorizing, and speculating that I've had a deliciously difficult time keeping up with all that it has stirred up. But I write to draw your attention to three great pieces I've read in the last couple of days. (Thank god for realclearpolitics.com, which helps keep me focused, well-informed, and distracted from work each day.)

1. Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! (Rebecca Traister, Salon.com)
**Must read!**
One of the smartest, most necessary reads of the election thus far, from a woman who isn't exactly a Hillaryite but who deconstructs perfectly the sexism and misogyny lurking (sometimes not so secretly) underneath Obama's campaign and his supporters. It's written from a 30-something women's perspective, which perhaps is why it particularly resonates with me. If you think you've read it all before about sexism, feminism, Obama-cultism in Election 2008, think again. Here's a snapshot that hopefully induces you to read the whole thing:

"I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent's. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls "just a man."

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn't know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race -- an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face."

2. Obama, Small Town Whites, and the Super Delegates (Jay Cost on realclearpolitics.com)
This guy is an electoral statistics genius! In looking at the breakdown of white support (or lack thereof) for Obama in Ohio, Cost makes a compelling, fact-based case for why his candidacy could spell yet another presidential defeat for democrats in 2008. Look at his table breaking down white support in Ohio's 6th congressional district for Hillary during the primary compared against how John Kerry did with the same voters in 2004--the numbers tell a scary picture for a potential Obama nomination. Look at the charts; read this article!

For a similarly nerdy yet utterly fascinating mathematical/statistical breakdown--upside: there are groovy color-coded maps!--see Sean Oxendine's, "No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot." I guarantee you will find this so very interesting. Really.

3. A Living Lie (Thomas Sowell on realclearpolitics.com)
This piece is informative because it reveals the Obama most people haven't bothered to examine--the pre-U.S. Senate Obama--and shines a too-rarely-seen light on the realities of Obama's thin resume compared to his thick rhetoric. Not much else to say; Sowell says it all so well that you have to read it for yourself.

Who's Your Dyke Daddy?

2008-04-11T03:25:00Z

I asked two of my fellow newly-elected gay Hillary delegates last weekend whether they thought the LGBT community seemed more unified behind Clinton or Obama. They weren't sure. While they were (obviously) strongly pro-Hillary, they lamented about how many of their friends and coworkers were Obamaniacs. I tended to think that Hillary might have an edge with queers, or maybe just lesbians, because nearly all of my lesbian friends strongly support her over Obama.

Obama has said some good things about LGBT issues, but part of me is distrustful. It didn't help that he had an ex-gay minster, Donnie McKlurkin, travel and campaign with him in South Carolina last fall. Sure, he disavowed Donnie's comments against gays, but how many times are we going to accept Obama's habit of befriending and soliciting the help of people who say bigoted things, and then disavowing their words without actually disassociating himself with such people? When does Obama finally begin to be that agent of change and unity he so passionately believes himself to be?

I'm not the only distrustful gay. This Politico.com story--Gay Press Frustrated by Obama Approach--dissects Obama's unwillingness to meet directly with publishers and editorial boards of gay presses across the country. According to the article, he has done some gay interviews, such as with the Advocate, but has preferred not to meet directly with gay publishers and editorial boards because:

"Obama is talking to mainstream audiences about issues of importance to our community,” said Eric Stern, a leader of Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council. “While Hillary is attractive, she is making her appeal almost exclusively to gay audiences. That is not a postmodern approach.”

That makes absolutely no sense to me. That is offensive to me. I like the Philadelphia Gay New's tactic:

Mark Segal didn't’t want to wait. After weeks of requests to interview Barack Obama, the publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News concluded the senator’s aides may never make him available.

So even as the Obama campaign held out the possibility of an interview before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, Segal published a half-blank front page to represent what he described in an editorial as Obama’s “disrespect of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] local media.”

Meanwhile, as documented in the Politico.com piece, Clinton has actively met with them in several cities. And just yesterday, her campaign announced the formation of a 71-member LGBT Pennsylvania steering committee.

And you wouldn't know it if you didn't see Hillary's appearance on Ellen this past Monday (since most of the media coverage focused on her call for more breast cancer funding and her Kennedy-esque call to action to cure breast cancer within ten years), but Hillary spent a considerable part of the interview discussing queer rights. She gave a very personal account of how her parents came around on their views of gay people and gay rights, and how that has shaped her views on the importance of LGBT equality. It's a great exchange; watch it here.

While neither Hillary or Barack go as far as I would like on gay rights (neither supports gay marriage; only Kucinich and Gravel did), I definitely am feeling more of the gay love--and believing it--from Hillary. As my gay boy delegate friends reminded me on Saturday, Hillary's the only one who has marched in a gay pride parade. Here's a great one from NYC's 37th annual pride parade in 2006:

Delegately

2008-04-07T03:39:00Z

Yesterday I was elected in the second round as a Hillary delegate in my state legislative district caucus -- I am one of 12 Hillary delegates and now must run once more at the congressional caucus or the Washington state democratic convention to make it as a national delegate at this summer's Democratic convention in my hometown of Denver, Colorado. I plan on mounting a fantastic campaign based on the motto, "I'm going all the way with Hillary!" (Or maybe, since I'm married, that should say, "for" Hillary.)

As I sat in the packed West Seattle High gym yesterday as the entire caucus--Hillary delegates vastly outnumbered by Obama delegates--waited and waited for the credentialing committee to do its work, I spent a lot of time looking around and trying to understand why certain people wore Obama stickers and others wore Hillary stickers. When my wife and I went to our local pub for dinner later that evening, I overheard people talking about being at the caucus, and even saw the caucus chair (King County councilman Dow Constantine) walk out of the pub. As we were seated, I noticed behind Tanya a man sitting with his wife and child. He wore an Obama sticker--no doubt he had also just come from the caucus. He was a typical Seattleite--decked out in "nice" outdoor-ish clothing (REI quality), his wife had a big rock on her left hand, their child dressed nice. My educated guess was that they were at least upper-middle class. Why do they support Obama? I then remembered that among Obama's core constituencies are higher-income, well-educated individuals and students. That describes Seattle to a T, and no doubt played a big role in why he dominates the caucuses here. (Obama carried Washington's caucuses at a rate of about three to one, yet won its primary by only 6 percentage points. What does that tell us?)

Who are some of Hillary's core supporters? The elderly, less educated, lower-income/working-class, and women. These are people for whom participating in caucuses is often not an option: if you're house bound, stuck with children, working a weekend shift, can't find daycare or time off to attend an event at a fixed time and of considerable length, or are too frail to get out of the house or too faint of voice to shout to be heard at rowdy, packed caucus rooms, the caucuses disenfranchise you.

But the bigger conclusion I've drawn is that if you're well-off, well-educated, if you've weathered the last 8 years of George W. Bush without any real concern about where your next paycheck is coming from or whether you have health insurance, if you're a young student who hasn't yet had to worry about how you'll pay off your student loans or handle a mortgage or dig out of credit card debt or get your own health insurance outside of your parents' plan--then you can afford to vote on hope. You can afford to vote for Obama because his rosy message about a new kind of politics and national unity sound so great, and your personal situation doesn't demand the details he isn't providing about how he's going to do what he says or the proof he hasn't shown about whether he can accomplish his goals. These are Obama's supporters. That's why he's won in states like Washington.

Many of Hillary's supporters don't have the luxury to trust someone's rosy words without a reasonable guarantee. Their lives and livelihood are on the line. They desperately need someone who knows policy, who knows the executive and legislative processes like the back of their hand, who knows where the problems are and has detailed plans for fixing them. They can't afford to take a chance on someone so happily vague and charming as Obama. They need results and need them now. That's why she won in states like Ohio and Texas, and why she's ahead in states like Pennsylvania and Indiana.

In this fantastic Salon.com article, Sean Wilentz describes how, if Democrats held their candidate selection process like the general election--i.e., winner-take-all primaries, Hillary would be blowing Obama out of the water by now. He also argues the point about caucuses and how they are wrongly failing Hillary:

Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military. Clinton's victories, by contrast, have come overwhelmingly in states with primaries, not caucuses. Obama is certainly entitled to the delegates he won in the caucuses. But he can hardly, on that account, claim that he is clearly the popular favorite. ...

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.

The process (not to mention the media) is stacked against Clinton, but that makes me even more determined to do all I can to support her and see it through all the way to the convention. Helen Thomas thinks it's a good idea, and I always believe our elders often really do know best.

More to the Point

2008-03-27T16:26:00Z

I have to direct you to this fantastic article this morning which further makes my previous argument (thank you, Mr. Greenberg).

In his article Double Negative, David Greenberg also pooh-poohs this idea that somehow the Democratic race--and Clinton's campaign tactics in particular--are particularly nasty or below-the-belt. In fact, he argues that she's providing the type of campaigning liberals have long wished for after getting beat time after time by Republicans.

"The most compelling reason to stop the demonization of Clinton is a philosophical one. For the claim that Clinton's attacks are somehow beyond the pale rests on and revives a distressing view of liberalism, politics, and power that, only recently, liberals seemed quite united in overcoming. ...

"But, as noted recently by James Carville--no stranger to political combat--campaigning is training for governing, preparing candidates to "get hit, stand strong, and, if necessary, hit back." Without a certain humility and hesitation about hitting back, neither Clinton nor Obama would be a good liberal. But, without the requisite readiness to do so, neither would be a very good politician either--or, more to the point, a very good president."

Great article for everyone to wake up and read.

Harding v. Vick

2008-03-27T03:55:00Z

During my lunch break today, I turned on MSNBC to hear the latest rants against Hillary Clinton, and I was not disappointed. The woman anchor (I forget her name) was interviewing Chris Matthews, the Hardball host whom I used to enjoy watching before he decided he wanted Barack Obama as his personal love slave. Together they ganged up on Hillary again with the oft-repeated, meaningless "She'll do anything to win!" refrain. But today they took a step lower.

When Hillary was asked in an editorial board interview by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to address the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright (who married him and his wife, baptized his kids, and whom, he said on Keith Olberman's MSNBC show, brought him to Jesus), she replied, "He would not have been my pastor...You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Apparently, Matthews and host felt this was the slimiest, lowest, most mean-spirited thing yet said by Clinton, clear evidence that "she will do whatever it takes to win!" So low, so ballsy, and so malicious was her statement, they felt compelled to posit, "Have we just witnessed the Tonya Harding event of this campaign?"

"Yes, I think we have! This is her Tonya Harding moment. It has happened," crowed Matthews.

I can't help but think there's no way in hell they, or any member of the media, would stoop to--and get away with--comparing Obama to someone similarly sinister and unlikeable in America's eyes. "Has he become the Michael Vick of this campaign, Chris?" "Yes, he has. This is Michael Vick moment!"

I don't quite understand how making a statement about how you decide whom you choose to associate with equates you to a batterer and America's trailer-trash idol of yore. To think that it's acceptable to compare the first serious, competent, incredibly smart woman candidate for the highest executive office in the world to the white trash queen of mean (not my opinion, but a fair consensus sentiment of Americans at the time, I think) says volumes about the media's sexist double-standard and the prevailing misogynistic attitudes manifested in their depiction of Clinton's every word and deed.

I'm starting to resign myself to the reality that this country just isn't really ready to elect a capable woman (or any woman, for that matter) to the presidency. And then, reading this article about how people in Pennsylvania who have real-life concerns about core issues beyond the stupidity of one's pastor are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton, maybe there is hope.

April 22 can't come soon enough--maybe then the yammering mouths calling for her to step out of the race will be shamed into silence.

Governors Gone Wild

2008-03-20T04:29:00Z

How utterly bizarre was the new governor of New York's first press conference? Did he announce a bold new initiative to feed the poor? No. Did he announce the formation of a bipartisan task force to address a Medicaid funding crisis? No. Did he announce that both he and his wife had had several affairs during the tenure of his marriage? Yes.

What?

David Paterson claimed he wanted to just get it all out in the open so as to avoid any potential blackmailing, or possibly to prevent a downfall similar to Eliot Spitzer's. But his admission was one of a purely personal nature--there was no prostitution involved. No use of campaign or political funds. No breaking of any laws. So why did he feel the need to divulge such a personal issue--unprompted and in such gruesome detail (many affairs, plural?! because he was in a jealous rage?!?)--on his first full day in office?

This has (or should have) no place in politics. His martial situation should have no bearing on his ability to govern the state, and his constituents have no right to know the dirty details. They should not care. Did Eliot Spitzer deserve his fate? While I don't think pornography should be a crime in the first place, I do think powerful politicians--and particularly men, because let's face it, it's always men who seem to fall victim to this game--deserve to be taken down for the sense of entitlement they develop, for their warped belief that their position and their power grants them a free pass from the laws and processes everyone else has to live by.

But to air your personal dirty laundry in front of the public? Who among us can claim to have had the perfect marriage or relationship? No one; nor should we ever expect it from our leaders. But to be honest--that press conference was just creepy and weird. One just really wonders why he did it.

The Real Low-Down

2008-03-08T19:10:00Z

Since Clinton's huge wins Tuesday there have been more interesting facts and nuances about this unconventional primary to ponder than I can keep up with. But I'll try.

In particular, this huge mess DNC Chair Howard Dean has created by disenfranchising Florida (could anyone believe that after 2000, it could ever happen again?) and Michigan, and the silly proportional delegate distribution in the caucus/primary systems (vs. the winner-take-all approach of the GOP) which allows a candidate to win the popular vote yet lose the delegate count (as appears to be happening in Texas).

Best--actually worst--of all is the inherent un-democratic nature of the caucuses themselves and their disproportionate impact on this year's primary. Read this great piece, "Close Down the Caucuses," summed up well by this snippet:

Caucus rules are often complicated. That, too, turns off many people who will vote in November but don't care enough to go through the caucus hassle. The deliberations are public, and that lets activists bully shy participants into supporting their candidate.

Any event that takes place at a specific hour -- no matter what the hour -- can't be democratic. Nevada Democrats contended that their caucuses were easy to attend because they were held on a Saturday afternoon. The Texan caucuses were scheduled to start after dinner.

I experienced this bullying first-hand, as the crowd of Obama supporters first drowned out the approximately 90-year-old, witty yet frail-voiced woman elected by my Clinton contingent to speak for us, then started yelling and pointing their fingers at me once I was chosen to replace her in a back-and-forth to persuade undecideds. It wasn't a scene for the old or faint of heart, kids.

Today's Washington Post has a fascinating front-page story on how the Clinton and Obama sides each masterfully exploited the primary process weirdness for their own gains, yet note how although Obama might win in the pledged delegate count, he might very well shoot himself and the whole Democratic party in the foot for the general. Here's a very interesting fact from the article that all sides need to wake up to:

David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, said the strategy had an upside beyond the compiling of delegates. Obama was building a case with superdelegates that his appeal to nontraditional voters would have a ripple effect down the ballot in swing states such as Colorado and Iowa, where some of those superdelegates will be running for reelection. And by building organizations in all 50 states, Obama can make the case that he has an infrastructure primed and ready for the general election.

Then came Ohio and Texas, and all the old fears of Obama's narrow appeal came flooding back.

"A lot of the states he's winning are states that we're not going to win in November," said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. "It's not a strategy that bodes well, in my opinion."

A Clinton campaign memo on Wednesday noted that of the 11 core Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses, Obama has won 10: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana. In 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic nominee, lost each of these states by 15 points or more.

In other words, what good is winning a state (and using that win to buffer your delegate count) if there's no way that state has a realistic chance of going for a Democrat in the general? Wouldn't we be much better off with the candidate who can deliver the solidly-Democratic and in-play swing states/battleground states that Dems can need to win--Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts--all states that Clintonn won handily?

Not least of all, let's realize this important fact:

In fact, although Clinton still trails Obama in the overall popular vote, she has now won more primary votes than any Democratic nominee in history, according to political analyst Rhodes Cook.

This comes from a wonderful article by the National Journal's Ronald Brownstein detailing the passion of Clinton supporters even though the media seems to believe only Obama has dedicated supporters and volunteers. Indulge me while I pick out one last poignant piece from this article:

Clinton has sparked particular passion among women who have made their own difficult ascent in the workplace. ...

Nancy Patterson, a 54-year-old communications technician from San Antonio, had taken a week's vacation to volunteer for Clinton. "I like Obama, but he needs to wait his turn," she said. "I feel if it was the opposite -- a more experienced man and a more eloquent woman, [the voters] would go with the man. But because she's a woman, [experience] is discounted."

Patterson remembered working in an office where her supervisor kept a copy of Playboy on his desk, and she saw in Clinton's rise an echo of her own struggles. "I know what she had to put up with," Patterson said intently. She pounded her fist on the table. "She's giving her all," Patterson said. "I want to give my all."

Yes She Did

2008-03-05T20:32:00Z

Yes she will, and yes she did!

Clinton scored a huge win last night with decisive victories in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island--despite being counted out by the pundits and most of the media, and despite being outspent by Obama by over two to one in all states. I guess the candidate who promises to change the ways of Washington is finding out himself that money can't buy you an election, nor the substance to match your rhetoric.

There's so much to report about Clinton's impressive numbers with key constituencies--particularly women. (View the exit polls in every state to see just how well she did with a broadening array of demographics, particularly last-minute deciders.) But sticking with the theme of my last post, the Washington Post did a great story on the loyalty of the LGBT community in Texas. An interesting read if for no other reason than to marvel at the idea of a popular gay hangout in a town named Gun Barrel City, Texas.

Add to this the Washington Senate's passage yesterday of legislation expanding the rights and responsibilities under the state's domestic partnership law, which the governor is expected to sign, and I think we have seen a beautiful alignment in the political stars, folks.

Come On, Texas

2008-03-04T05:09:00Z

As we all wait with baited breath for the results of tomorrow's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, here's a wonderful little story about the triumph of Constitutional principles in the biggest of red states.

I wonder how many Americans knew that in Texas (along with Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama), it used to be illegal to sell sex toys? (Just like it used to be illegal for two members of the same sex to have sex.) Well not anymore! On February 13, a federal appeals court struck down the Texas law as a violation of citizens' Fourteenth Amendment right "to engage in private intimate conduct in the home without government intrusion."

Once again, Texas leads us away from Orwellian government intrusion into the private lives of everyday citizens towards a freer, more enlightened system of governance rooted in human dignity and individual autonomy. You'll remember that five years ago, Texas also helped eradicate all the nation's remaining sodomy laws when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the state could not criminalize sexual behavior between two consenting adults of the same sex (even though it permitted the same acts for members of the opposite sex). In a remarkable opinion (which I highly recommend reading all the way through), it also reversed its decision from 1986 preserving sodomy laws in general and recognized a general right to privacy for consensual adult sexual behaviors.

So, yay for Texas! Let's hope this provides good juju for tomorrow's vote.

Where are Hillary's Women?

2008-02-29T04:29:00Z

"The problem with Hillary's campaign," I'm paraphrasing here--from Richard Land, public policy chief of the Southern Baptist Convention on NPR this morning--"is that Hillary's campaigning like she's interviewing for a job, and Barack's campaigning like he's on a date." He might be on to something. Is that why Hillary's support among women, typically her stronghold, seems--if we are to believe the polls and the press--to be dissipating? Do they want to be wooed? (And is this why practically all my lesbian friends are voting for Hillary, yet practically all my straight women friends are voting for Barack? A stretch....but it's an interesting trend I've noticed.)

Judy Woodruff of PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer interviewed Hillary yesterday, and as she did in the debate on Tuesday, Hillary spoke some truth about the biggest elephant in the room--the fact that she's a woman, and having a woman as president is probably the most radical change this country could make. If you watch it, go toward the end of the interview and you'll see Hillary in one of those wonderful moments where her true personality and great wisdom shines through in the most earnest and effortless way. She reiterated that electing a woman would be a huge sea change in our country because of what it could mean to women and girls of this country about what type of opportunities they could have, what types of power they could wield.

Women comprise over 50% of the U.S. population, she said, and yet we have never had a mother, a sister, a wife, a daughter in the White House--and isn't it about time we did for the momentous change it would create in the lives of the majority of this country?

She also wondered why she and everyone else have not been allowed to acknowledge this important reality? She is right--we should be. We should have been all along, and if we did, maybe her campaign would be having even more resonance with more people.

Why is it not OK to be having a national dialog about women's relative absence from the major levers of power in this country, and the ways in which having a woman at the helm of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world would inspire and improve not just women's and girl's lives, but dramatically alter how men (both here and abroad) view and treat women? Why is it OK and encouraged to posit the influence of an Obama presidency on the lives and opportunities of African-Americans, but not OK to talk about a Hillary Clinton presidency's effect on women and how men see and treat women?

I spent last weekend on a ski trip where we watched a hideous TV show about young women competing to be part of a new Pussycat Dolls-type "girl" group. I want the chance for all little girls to have greater aspirations than that. Instead of hoping to grow up to be anorexic, vapid, and perpetually slutty-looking (apologies, for I have no problems with actually being a slut), I want my future daughter and all girls of this country to have a real-life example of the best of what's possible for them.

As Hillary seems to be talking more and more about this in these late crucial days of her campaign, I wait with anxious hope that the message is finally getting through.

An appropriate illustrative anecdote from today's Slate:

The Front Line

Cindy Loose, a Washington Post reporter, writes this guest post:

I was stuck in a crowded parking lot at the grocery store the other day in my minivan, the woman in a station wagon in front of me waiting for a space to open. Driving up next to me was a middle-aged man in a black sports car who found that he could’t squeeze past me. He rolled down his window and started screaming about “F---king stupid women! Stupid f---king women should’t be allowed to drive.” I finally said to him, “That’s quite a mouth you have on you.” He responded, “You f---king whore!” Without thinking, I leapt out of the car and headed toward him. I could hear him click his door locks as he put his car in reverse and drove back as fast as he could. I got to his window and screamed, “Get out of the car and call me that. Get out of the car!” Still in reverse, he sped out of the lot. Several people clapped for me, then a middle-aged woman pulled up next to me, rolled down her window, and said, “I’m so glad you confronted him! Are you voting for Hillary? If you are, will you come to Texas with me and campaign for her?”

Right ON!

Finally, A Smart Word About Superdelegates

2008-02-26T04:37:00Z

I read recently that the whole superdelegates issue is this year's hanging chads, or this year's electoral college. In other words, that obscure facet of our democratic process which heretofore languished in the obscurity of civics textbooks, then surfaced to give everyone a refresher just when the fate of the nation--the outcome of the presidency--hangs in its balance.

With the democratic race so close, everyone's become an expert superdelgate counter, since it's those votes which could very well determine the outcome if Hillary squeezes out some upcoming wins keeps the regular delegate count close. Most of us probably had no idea what a superdelegate was at the beginning of this year, but by now we all know that they're elected officials and other VIPs in the party who get to have a loud voice in this nominating process. Most of the discussion around superdelegates has been negative, with fears that a bunch of back-room operatives will decide the outcome of the race. A lot of crying, moaning, and whining about the un-democratic nature of their influence.

Finally, a smart and more informative piece explaining the history behind the superdelegate process and a sound rationale appeared in today's New York Times, courtesy of Geraldine Ferraro (the last time--make that the only time--we've had a woman on a general presidential ballot). In addition to explaining why the system was created, she explains the problems with relying solely on our system of primaries and caucuses for nominating candidates.

Aside from the fact that such races only reflect the will of about 15% of registered Democrats (hardly a mandate indicative of how the general election would flow), she also rightly points out the unfairness of states that open their primaries to Republicans and independents, thereby clouding the intent and right of Democrats to choose the nominee of their party. She also thinks that since many superdelegates are officeholders, they are now afraid of going against their constituents' wishes for fear of losing their own seats--being forced to make a choice between voting their conscience and voting to save their political lives.

"Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.

"And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.

"I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy."

I highly recommend reading Ferraro's piece, and think twice the next time you hear yet another debate about how the superdelegates should vote and whether they're even necessary altogether.

How Long Will the Hope Pope Float?

2008-02-21T05:01:00Z

I keep seeing signs that the media is finally starting to do its job--which is, not to coronate a president but to be fair in helping the people vet him or her. But is it too little, too late? What is it about Americans that we refuse to look too deeply into anything for fear that it tells us what we don't want to know? Aren't we tired of capitulating to believe something is true only because we are told over and over and over again that it is? (I am for change. Only I can make change. Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.)

Obama's crusade (and the religious/messianic aspect to it all is starting to disturb others, not just me) is ever-so-slowly getting more scrutiny, but for his devotees, it hardly seems to matter.

Now he's the Hope Pope
Finally, now we know we're delusional
At long last, someone started looking into his record of qualification .... and found nothing:

If we wind up with another four years of someone who is grossly unqualified in the White House, who assures us that he is the answer to all that partisan political bickering in Washington, who claims the moral high ground only to let us down at the discovery that he, too, takes corporate money and has personal connections with lowlifes under indictment, then the voters have only themselves to blame.