This passes for informed commentary
A friend linked me to Gail Collins’ op-ed today, “Hillary, Buckeye Girl.” I haven’t been reading the NYT columnists for the past few weeks, so I’ve missed my daily dose of inane elections commentary. Upon reading the op-ed, I had two reactions:
1. Huh?
2. This passes for informed commentary?
The premise of the op-ed, near as I can tell, is that Ohio is “a no-frills kind of place, suspicious of glamour” and Clinton is similarly unexciting and boring. So the thread of the columns winds all over the place:
1. Ohio is boring and Clinton is boring: a match made in heaven!
If Hillary Clinton were a state, she’d be Ohio.This is a no-frills kind of place, suspicious of glamour. Barack Obama’s promise to make politics cool again doesn’t necessarily resonate here. Eight presidents came from Ohio, and the coolest was William McKinley.
…
“We have to start acting like Americans again, and roll up our sleeves and start solving our problems,” Clinton said, launching one of the least-exciting discussions of economic development in memory.
There she sat, one of the best-known human beings on the planet. The first woman ever to be a serious United States presidential contender; the face that launched a thousand books; a former first lady, current U.S. senator and survivor of the most famous sex scandal of the century. And yet she has managed to become the boring candidate in this primary.
This is one of the great anti-glamour stories in history. How could Ohio not relate?
2. Obama is too exciting for boring Ohio:
If Hillary can win this one — and if she doesn’t, she is as cooked as reheated risotto — it will be because people here worry that Barack Obama is getting show-offy.
3. Obama is doing well, learning quickly, and even Bill Clinton would’ve had a hard time beating him, if he were running. See how she managed to divert focus from Hillary Clinton to Bill there?
Back around Debate 10 — lo those many debates ago — Hillary routinely wiped the floor with Barack. He was reluctant and stumbling. She was confident and presidential. Then, as Adam Nagourney pointed out in The Times this week, he suddenly evolved. Now, he’s better than she is — calm and witty at crucial junctures, always to the point, never obsessing on the small stuff. After this week’s Debate 20, Hillary’s people gloated over the fact that Barack had said he agreed with her entirely on several key points, as if this was an admission of weakness rather than the key to his campaign — the promise to find whatever consensus there is and build on it.
4. So, naturally, Obama will win:
If Hillary is stumbling, it may be because there just isn’t any good path to take. Nobody wants a bloodbath, and fighting against the first possible African-American president can be as tricky as going after the first possible woman. Still, she might have been able to handle all that, and the fact that he is a product of Kansas and Hawaii and Kenya, of Christians and Muslims, of a single mom on food stamps and Harvard Law, if he didn’t also turn out to have the best learning curve in political history.You don’t often see a candidate on a trajectory like Obama’s, and at some point it will inevitably head down again. But until it does, even the original Bill Clinton would have a hard time beating him.
5. Then again, he might not. Because if he won the Ohio primary, then he’d be a winner, and Ohio is a loser and would empathize better with Clinton (and suddenly reverse its votes?):
You do your best, and if things don’t work out, it just wasn’t your time. Life isn’t always fair.All of which Ohio understands very well.
Honestly, I don’t know what the hell she’s saying, and the whole piece is fluff. It’s less than a week to the big Mar. 4 primaries and instead of providing a moderately informative and entertaining column on the candidates, which is her usual stock in trade, she stereotypes an entire state and entirely omits the candidates’ platforms, focusing instead on a bizarre narrative of who’s cool and who’s not, which sets up the primary as a popularity contest. I know Gail Collins can do informative and funny, because she did it with Huckabee, but I’m not even seeing the humor here. I see lazy attempts to reduce both of the candidates to “boring” and “glamour,” and that’s unfair to both of them.
Links roundup
Links roundup tonight, then a post tomorrow (assuming work doesn’t explode again–cross your fingers for me!). I’ve been kicking around thoughts on “Clinton is too ambitious” / “She’s just doing this to get elected” / “She wants it too much,” and how those statements show that the speaker (1) is sexist or (2) hasn’t thought the issue through and is either relying on sexist stereotypes or simply has invested zero thinking in analyzing the candidate and the statement. It’s also nothing short of bizarre to me that being ambitious and wanting the presidency are bad or even remarkable, given that both qualities are inherent in the nature of running for president in a competition against other people. It’s like going to the ocean and complaining that the beach is sandy and the water’s salty. I also wonder why people think that Clinton is too ambitious and put her in the “wants to be someone” camp of “Anyone running for president either wants to do something or be someone,” rather than Mitt Romney. He’d be my first and probably only choice for “Just doing this to get elected as a vanity project.”
But that’s for tomorrow, whoops, because I’m trying to go to bed early tonight. Another thing I’m thinking about these days is why I’m an activist (or working on becoming one): specifically, what was it in my upbringing that’s produced an angry, argumentative liberal who believes in Social Change and Individual Action? I suspect that it was books. Specifically, the Little House on the Prairie series.
Another plug for The Hillary 1000, a Clinton media aggregating and fundraising blog run by Redstar, Pocochina, and Donna Darko. They have a bunch of analysis of and links to interesting articles on Clinton in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere (ok, I lie–mostly the blogosphere, and some articles in online magazines. Do those qualify as mainstream media?) and I find it encouraging to encounter like-minded people in the blogosphere who are actively involved as volunteers: blogging, contributing, calling, going out to the March 4 primary states!
Election 2008
Quixote at Shakesville: Clinton vs. Obama. “I have a confession to make. I’m moving away from the Democratic dogma that says we have two fine candidates, and either one will be a great President. I no longer think so. There’s a disconnect between Obama’s words and deeds that got too big for me. So I took another look at Clinton.” A post lookinng at ways in which Obama panders to the right.
Y’all already know where I stand in terms of candidates, but I’m an open-minded person and my vote in the general election is still up for grabs. However, between Quixote’s post and a few other recent ones discussing examples of how Obama distances himself from liberal positions and uses conservative rhetoric to broaden his appeal (or something) make it unlikely that I’ll vote for him, unless he gets his head out of his ass and stands up for the liberal voters who presumably make up his grand movement. If this pandering to conservatives (which nomination does he think he’s running for?) is a taste of what he means by bipartisanship and unity, I’ll pass, thanks.
Feminism & Politics
Jill at Feministe: Women in “Free” Iraq. Concern for women’s rights is good. Using “women’s rights” as a justification for invading other nations, particularly when you don’t give a damn about “women’s rights” in your own country except when it comes to curtailing them, is not good. In fact, it’ll probably result in a complete failure. Color me surprised.
Jeff at Shakesville: Gender: It’s Not Just for Girls Anymore. Long story short: people are people and gender roles hurt girls, boys, and everyone else. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?!
Cara at The Curvature: In a rape culture, the man is never to blame.
A man is accused of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, the victim goes through with the case, the perpetrator testified that he did indeed attempt sexual assault . . . and he walks free. How, exactly, does that happen? Well, because people will stop at nothing to believe in a world where the patriarchy is actually all fine and fucking dandy and where committing sexual violence against a woman is just “poor judgment.” Who is to blame? Take your pick among the judge, jury, law and culture.
The comments are quite interesting as well, in that you see rape apologism in action, as commentators accuse Cara of “sensationalizing” the case, exaggerating and overhyping our “rape culture,” and saying that technically, under legal minutiae, the rapist didn’t actually rape the victim, even though the rapist admitted to raping her.
Holly at Feministe: Sanesha Stewart is dead and I have only tears and frustration for her. A post on the brutal murder of Sanesha Stewart and the disgustingly transphobic media response to it.
Food & Politics
Bonnie P. at The Ethicurean: Nuggets of truth discusses the Charlotte Observer’s special series The Cruelest Cuts, on the lives of the 28,000 poultry workers in North Carolina.
Cheap food comes at a price, and in this area more than any other, it’s easy for consumers to be aware and to make a difference: by refusing to pay the lowest possible price for food, you can directly cut an unethical company’s bottom line and show that you care about workers’ rights and safety. Hell, you don’t even have to write a letter of complaint to the company or write a letter to your local newspaper. All you have to do is read the newspaper, remember “Company X has extremely poor worker safety,” and decide not to buy Company X’s products at the grocery, if you can afford to do so. I think moral apathy and self-centeredness is a greater problem than outright, bone deep prejudice when it comes to reforming society.
Politics
The NYT Board Blog: The New Stimulus Package: A Big Disappointment. Old news by now, but honestly, I think the stimulus package is a good example of how laughably inept Congress is. Have none of them taken economics? Do none of them have advisors? I can’t believe that the stimulus package is anything but pandering to the short-term desires of short-sighted voters, who are willing to take a tax rebate of a few hundred dollars when the government is running a huge deficit and lacks the money to properly fund education, infrastructure development, rebuilding New Orleans, veterans’ benefits, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . American politics is a joke, I swear. The Democrats use their 2006 mandate to accomplish astonishingly little, and then they cut the most vulnerable groups out of the stimulus bill by dropping food stamps, and applaud themselves for bipartisan work. Gag me with a spoon.
The NYT Board Blog: About those Bush tax cuts for the rich . . .
In unveiling his final budget this month, President Bush again called for making his tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 permanent, rather than letting them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010. That would be irresponsible.
In the spirit of the late, great Molly Ivins, you can’t help but laugh at this shit. It’s either that, or cry. What reality does Bush live in? Apparently it’s not one where economists and anyone not in the top 1% of American society live.
Environmentalism
VentureBeatWIRE: Second Rotation picks up $4.4 for electronics recycling. “Second Rotation is attempting to create a marketplace for used electronics that will slow the pace of new additions to the landfill.” Definitely worth taking a look at the company if you have old phones, mp3 players, printers, or other electronics sitting around your home. Sadly, I don’t think they’ll take my dead laptop battery, which I still haven’t dropping off for recycling.
Miscellaneous
Arthur Frommer: “We are about to advertise the delights of visiting the U.S.A. while at the same time adopting constant measures to keep foreigners out”
I heard a lot of talk about the probability that the new session of Congress will set up a public-private organization spending $200 million dollars a year to promote and market incoming travel to the United States. According to various estimates, the United States has lost as much as 20% of the foreign tourists that were visiting our country each year prior to September 11.
I love how populist and down to earth Frommer is, and how he doesn’t shy away from tackling nonsensical politicking as it relates to travel.
Happy Hour
I am not in a happy place right now. Going for a jog after dinner will temporarily alleviate that to some degree, but in the meantime, I’m having a difficult time wrenching my thoughts away to something that isn’t inducing depression, anger, or simple unhappiness.
So, tell me something that made you happy this past week!
Volunteering for Clinton!
The primary season is still going on and I think that the increasing nastiness of the fights between various Obama and Clinton supporters is an indication that the race remains a contest. In light of that:
Hillary 1000 is a blog started up by The Redstar Perspective for pro-Clinton blogging and pro-Clinton news. Pocochina and Redstar are both blogging there and they have a blogroll of Clinton supporters (disclosure: I’m on the blogroll). Their goal is to raise $100,000 in donations for Clinton through netroots participation and generally spur support and volunteer efforts.
Via the Hillary 1000 blog, I’d like to point out that as of Feb. 19, Clinton had raised $15M in 15 days! How’s that for an example of grassroots organization and small donor support? It’s not fundraising you’ll see mentioned much in the mainstream media because it doesn’t fit into the media narratives of Obama as anti-establishment, grassroots organizer and Clinton as big donor establishment. In fact, a quick Google search of the phrase Clinton raised $15m turns up exactly two relevant links: the abcnews blog and a blurb in The Hotline. Take a look at HillaryClinton.com’s Thank You slide show for stories and quotes from various small donors, who gave because they believe that Clinton is the most qualified candidate running and they are willing to scrimp and save to support her candidacy.
Via Hillary 1000 and HillaryClinton.com, an easy way to support Clinton and get involved with the campaign is to make calls. All you need is a few free minutes and access to a phone capable of making interstate calls (nearly all U.S. cell plans)! I did some phonebanking the weekend before Super Tuesday, and it’s extremely low-stress . The calls are targeted at Clinton supporters, so mostly it’s to see if people have already voted, if they plan on voting, and if they plan on supporting Clinton. If the answer to either of the last two questions is nay, it’s an opportunity to stump for your candidate a bit and actively support her. Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont are March 4, followed by Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. The race is not over yet, and you need to get involved, no matter what side you support. Voter turnout is appalling low in the U.S. and in order to have an effectively run country with leaders that represent, or at least hear, your views, you need to get out and vote and persuade other people to do so in order that pollsters and media hacks can’t coopt your voice and warp your silence into something else altogether.
——————————
This election is making me want to do a Media Studies degree, despite having done my undergrad in a completely unrelated field–although propaganda text was certainly a large part of my thesis–because it’s fascinating and appalling seeing how the mainstream media shape elections and the sociopolitical culture of the country. There’s definitely an excellent Ph.D. and a popular nonfiction book in the last two presidential elections alone, but I’m sure someone’s already thought of the idea and is diligently researching it as I type.
Being An Ostrich
I’ve been out of the loop the past few days, since work blew up last week and I went to the ‘burbs for the long weekend. I even spent most of Saturday far, far away from internet access and had lunch at a cliffside restaurant south of Point Lobos where there was no cell phone reception. It was blissful.
It turns out that I missed quite a bit while I had my head buried in the sand, and quite frankly, I don’t have much to say about it all. I’m fucking tired of these campaigns that have been running since shortly after the midterm elections in 2006, I’m tired of all the posturing by both candidates’ supporters, I’m tired of the goddamned mainstream media in the U.S. and how they play such an important role in turning the presidential election into a popularity contest run according to their own beliefs and petty narratives, I’m goddamned tired of feeling helpless, angry, and hopeless about the state of the nation. I hate that when I take a weekend away, I don’t want to come back because the thought of ignoring everything and focusing on books, music, and cooking is extremely seductive. I hate that it’s unusual to find someone in real life who thinks the way I do about politics, feminism, sexism, racism, homophobia, poverty, and other social issues and that I’m continually surprised and bloody impressed when anyone expresses opinions and a level of considered thought that seem positively marvelous because for once, I’m not disappointed.
I need to step back, shake the water off, and take a good, hard look at some personal and political things right now before diving back into being politics, rage, and feminism 24/7.
Links Roundup
The number of open tabs in my browser, starred entries in my RSS reader, and links marked in my email is becoming overwhelming, so here’s another collection of links. Also, I’m waiting for some enormous attachments to slowly upload to email, so I might as well do something in the meantime. One of these days, I’m going to post the food and music entries I have piled up in my head–I made tagliatelle alla bolognese from scratch last night, both the pasta and the bolognese–but at this rate, it probably won’t be until the November election is over.
In this batch of links we have: politics (surprise!), feminism (surprise!), feminism/politics (no, really, surprise!), food, environmentalism, miscellaneous, and some humor.
Vocab Lesson: Pimp out
Transcript:
PRESS: —she’s got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she’d make a great president. Michelle Obama’s out there for her husband, so–
SHUSTER: But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
PRESS: No! If she didn’t want to be there, she wouldn’t be there. I mean, give Chelsea a break.
The clip is the excerpt from MSNBC’s show where Shuster said that Chelsea’s “being pimped out in some weird sort of way.” I’m not even going to touch the “in some weird sort of way” part of the comment because it makes my head hurt. At any rate, the most common reaction I’ve received to this comment by the Ostriches (as people who deny the existence of sexism in the attacks against Hillary, and now Chelsea, Clinton, shall now be known) is that “pimped out” is “just a common expression, it’s not really sexist. You’re just reading too much into it.”
At heart, I think that people who deny that “pimped out” is sexist and also say, “Hillary just seems ambitious”/”Hillary just wants to get elected” simply have not thought the matter through at all, because if they did, they would realize that their arguments don’t make sense at the level of basic logic. Or maybe not, since these people go into amazing contortions to claim that although sexism exists, it just doesn’t exist when it’s aimed at Clinton, or to claim that sexism doesn’t exist, period, and I’m being too “sensitive.” But getting back to “pimped out,” I’ll concede that it has become a common expression. However, “pimped out” in its common expression, as slang, means something different from the way in which Shuster used it:
1. Common expression: to decorate, to deck out with flashy accouterments. E.g. “Pimp My Ride.” Also related to “pimp” meaning cool; ostentatious displays of wealth. See Urban Dictionary
2. Literal expression: to sell someone’s body for cash, generally without that person’s consent. Related to exploiting and abusing sex workers.
Look at those meanings. The common expression meaning of “pimped out” can in no conceivable way apply to Chelsea Clinton’s work calling people for their support, going to caucuses, and volunteering for her mother’s campaign. You don’t pimp out a person the way you do a car, particularly when that person is a young, attractive woman. When you talk about pimping out in the context of a person, particularly a woman, you’re talking about pimping out in its original sense: to sell someone for cash, for your own gain, against their will and without her consent. Since we’re talking about Chelsea calling superdelegates, working with voters, and fundraising, the “selling a body for cash” analogy is even more pointed.
So, think about it. Can the way that Shuster used “pimped out” to refer to Chelsea’s campaign work be the slang meaning? Not unless Chelsea’s been dressed with shiny rims and flame decals. Even if it could be the slang meaning, that is still offensive, because then we’re talking about equating a person with a car or some other object. Does that make your head hurt with the illogic? Well, then think about it and consider whether perhaps Shuster meant “pimped out” in its more original usage. It’s certainly a great deal more despicable, but that’s what sexism is: despicable. Particularly when you imply that Chelsea’s a whore, who isn’t an intelligent individual capable of making up her own mind about whether or not to campaign, and that Hillary’s a soulless pimp and by extension, a perverted failure of a mother. No matter how you slice this comment and its implications, it’s sexism wherever you look. For all you knee-jerk deniers of sexism out there, take a moment to think before you hit that comment link.
I do know that Shuster’s been suspended and forced to apologize. I do realize that right now, he’s being held accountable for his vile words when Chris Matthews, MSNBC’s reigning king of sexism, slid by with a weaseling, fake apology (by the way, Matthews, when Fox News is saying you’re sexist, you’ve officially sunk lower than pond scum in the pundit world). I do realize that a mere suspension is only a first step toward battling sexism in mainstream media. However, I don’t think that Shuster’s a scapegoat being hung out to dry, since his comment was actually sexist and vile. He’d only be a scapegoat if he were innocent. And furthermore, I think this instance of accountability for your words is a first step, and that’s important, because it shows that sexism is not acceptable and perhaps it’ll make more people think about the issue and it’ll make other people think before they open their mouths.
To close: Chelsea Clinton and America Ferrera (Betty on the U.S. version of Ugly Betty) on the campaign trail in Las Vegas.
Chelsea: I keep thinking I can’t, like, be more proud of my mom, but I get more proud of my mom. (1:10)
Chelsea: I actually lead a pretty private life, but really believe in my mom. I believe that she would be the best president. I couldn’t really imagine not trying to do whatever I could to help make her more accessible or make her message more accessible. (2:39)
Donate to Clinton’s Campaign
Clinton and Media Misogyny: Links
A few nights ago, I mentioned compiling two posts, one full of links to examples of sexism in the media coverage of Clinton, and one full of links to examples of victim-blaming in media coverage of rape cases. Well, I haven’t ruled the second one out yet, but the first one is irrelevant now, because Shakesville and Feministe have done an excellent job of analyzing present and past links:
Melissa McEwan at Shakesville: “What New Dissed Hill Is This?” has put together a fabulous collection of links to misogynist depictions of Clinton in the media, and discusses no less than three recent instances of sexist media coverage of Clinton:
1. Baseball cards of all the presidential candidates–except, wait, Clinton isn’t portrayed as a baseball player, although she’s clearly running for president, but as “Morganna the Kissing Bandit, a voluptuous woman known for running out onto the field and kissing players.” Then the card is taken out of the deck altogether rather than replaced with one of Clinton as a baseball player, along with her male competitors.
… It does, however, reveal how reluctant some people are to see—and portray—a woman doing “a man’s job.” There’s no reason Hillary couldn’t have been a baseball player … except because of someone’s limited capacity to envision her as anything but a woman and there are no women players in Major League Baseball.
2. Obama, a candidate widely noted for his amazing oratory and rhetorical skills (y’all know what I think of that, but whatever), uses coded sexist language to describe the Clinton campaign:
Someone speaking about Obama being the underdog, outsider candidate—which, by the way, once someone gets Democratic monument Ted Kennedy’s and former nominee John Kerry’s endorsements, is a meme that needs to die—says: “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.” Certainly this was a reference to Hillary, whom the Obama campaign has been long painting (and not without reason) as the establishment candidate. Had the non-sexist equivalent, as pointed out by Homunq here, been used—”You challenge the status quo and suddenly the gloves come off”—there would have been no problem, but “claws come out” is as sure a sexist dog whistle as is catfight.The big problem is that the someone who said this is Barack Obama.
3. MSNBC’s David Shuster accuses Clinton of “pimping out” Chelsea, who has the gall to be campaigning for her mother. Interestingly, the Romney sons campaigned for their father and the Bush twins campaigned for their father, too, yet those candidates were never accused of “pimping out” their children. It’s a sexist insult that devalues Chelsea and assumes she’s not intelligent enough to be making her own reasoned decisions and portrays Clinton as an immoral pimp selling her daughter for political gain and donations (i.e. cash). There’s clearly a double standard here, because it’s okay for sons and daughters to campaign for their male parents, but when a daughter campaigns for her female parent, it can only be through exploitation.
At the bottom of the post, there’s a great big bloody paragraph, which I will quote in full because it is powerful and horrible:
In the same world in which that woman turning sexism on its head is framed as Odd News, and in which that woman is called a bitch to the amusement of the other party’s nominee, and is called a she-devil and depicted with horns, and is heckled by jerks demanding she iron their shirts, and is reduced to tea parties and her response to that demeaned as “really be[ing] on edge,” and in which she is cast as a feminazi monster, and has her ability to withstand the rigors of the presidency questioned with an unflattering image, and has a nutcracker designed in her image, and finds her moment of candidly expressed emotion turned into a national story using dog-whistles once removed from “hysterical,” and is routinely accused of playing a victim and of playing the gender card, often erroneously, and is said to need a copy of The Rules, and is accused of having a career only because her husband cheated on her, and is subjected to the swill of online hate groups with names like “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich” and “Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Run for President, She Should Just Run the Dishes,” and is regularly featured in sexist political cartoons, and is challenged by a 527 calling itself C.U.N.T., and is called the Crybaby-in-Chief if she shows emotion, and can’t bloody win no matter what she does, but only in the eyes of misogynist wankers because SHE’S. STILL. HERE.
I call it powerful and horrible because every single sexist thing is a link (more thoughts on hypertext and how it affects language later). Go read the full post, with all its links to hard core proof of the sexism and outright woman-hating that’s reared its ugly head in this election cycle.
Thomas at Feministe also posts on the Shuster “pimped out” comment: “A Bad Day For Sexism Is A Good Day For Women.”
Yesterday, David Shuster at MSNBC asked if Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” because she’s making calls on behalf of her mother’s campaign, something that adult children of politicians do to support their fathers’ campaigns with regularity. The Clinton campaign told him how inappropriate his remark was in a private email, but Shuster stood his ground. So Clinton’s communication director, Howard Wolfson, called Shuster out for it publicly and said that Senator Clinton would pull out of the MSNBC debate scheduled for February 26.Schuster’s remark is sadly not an isolated incident. Sexist remarks about Clinton are a major dynamic of the campaign. But what is new is that Senator Clinton is in the position so many women wish they were in, to call out sexist remarks and to get results.
One of my colleagues believes that the “pimped out” comment isn’t offensive or sexist, people are just reading too much into a “common expression.” If it’s a common expression, that doesn’t mean it’s not gendered or sexist. If I call someone “gay” as an insult, that’s a homophobic insult even though it’s a common expression. Furthermore, if it’s just a “common expression,” why are people raising an enormous hullabaloo around the comment? It’s poor argumentation to speculate from effect to cause, but I believe that Hillary Clinton, of all people, knows how dangerous it can be to her campaign to be perceived as “oversensitive” to sexism. Threatening to pull out of the MSNBC debate, which is a move I wholly admire, isn’t a light reaction and it’s not something she would do for something perceived as trivial. That makes me think that perhaps this incident is serious and perhaps it isn’t just a “common expression” to say that a female presidential candidate is pimping out her daughter because her daughter chooses to campaign for her. Just like the Bush twins, the Romney sons, Gore’s daughter, and numerous candidates’ children have done for their fathers over the years.
Super Tuesday
Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. If your state primary is tomorrow and you’re registered to vote, go vote! If your state primary is tomorrow and you’re not registered to vote, google ‘provisional voting [state]‘ to see what your state’s rules are on provisional voting and on-site registration at the polls. If you aren’t registered and can’t vote tomorrow, register now so that you can vote in the general election come November!
I’ll be voting for Clinton, because I think she’s smarter, more competent, more experienced, more liberal, and tougher than Obama. I think she knows her policies better, I think she’d be better at the actual work of governing, that she’d be better at managing the various factions vying for attention and power, and I think she’s run a very good campaign in the face of undisguised, unbelievable misogyny. I think she’s better prepared to deal with a general election than Obama is–she’s a better debater and the Republicans have nothing new to throw at her. I am also a fan of the fact that she had the most diverse campaign staff of all the Democratic candidates and that she doesn’t hang out with ex-gay bigots.
Other than that, I got nothing for you, except this: both the Democrats are better than any of the Republicans. So no matter what happens tomorrow, I’m volunteering for whoever wins the Democratic primaries and I hope that both Clinton and Obama heed Bob Herbert’s advice and work together in the post-primary season.
On a side note, I am so sick of this generational shit and this unity/end of partisanship shit. As for the former, I’m a recent college grad and I’m not enamored of Obama and his vague promises of change and unity, whatever the hell they mean, and I’m not charmed by his poor oratorical skills (full disclosure: I haven’t been impressed by an orator since Cicero died). I do, in fact, pore over the details between the Clinton and Obama health care proposals; “the bitterness, divisiveness and ineffectiveness” do not make politics “seem so unsavory,” it’s the Democrats’ repeated and cowardly capitulation to the Republicans that make politics unsavory to me; and although I am “just fed up with the status quo,” I want something more than vague, unspecific promises of “change” and I’m skeptical of a “rockstar who embodies [that] desire [for change].” Would you all please stop with the “college students love Obama” crap? Not all college students do, and we’re not all idiots who want nothing more than “change” and don’t care about policy differences and platforms, whether we support Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or none of the above.*
As for Obama’s unity/end of partisanship shtick, I have a real problem with that, which Melissa McEwan articulates at Shakesville: “I Have Questions For Barack Obama.” In November 2006, the Democrats won majorities in both houses of Congress. It was going to be a period of change, it was going to be the beginning of the end of the social conservatism, fiscal irresponsibility, mindless militarism, corporate pandering, and everything else that Bush & Co. have been doing to destroy the country.
Instead, the Democratic Congress has repeatedly failed to get its act together and advance a liberal agenda (pro-choice, pro-environmental, anti-Bush tax cuts, pro-civil rights, pro-social welfare programs, anti-war) and instead it’s consistently capitulated to the Republicans. And yet, that is unity. That is bipartisanship. To me, in today’s world, bipartisanship and unity don’t mean working together, they mean the Democrats capitulating and giving the Republicans whatever they want. I want partisanship: I want the Democrats to stand up for liberal causes, challenge the Bush administration and the Republicans, and do the job I elected them to do, which is to represent my pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, anti-war, anti-lobbyist, liberal self. The Democrats and the Republicans have fundamentally different opinions on policies, and for some issues (environmental protection v. allowing companies to pollute; pro-choice legislation v. abstinence-only education and overturning Roe v. Wade; withdrawing from Iraq v. staying the course for the next “100 years;” restoring habeas corpus v. indefinitely detaining individuals and denying them due process; S-CHIP v. “you can always go to the emergency room;” etc.), never the twain shall meet. I am perfectly happy with the twain never meeting, if that means that the Democrats do their damned jobs. Standing up for your ideals means you have to be partisan on some issues and I see nothing wrong with that. They’re called “ideals” for a reason.
—————
*I don’t mean that people who support Obama are idiots. What I do mean is that a lot of the press about young voters supporting Obama, such as the Bob Herbert op-ed, portray those young voters as idiots who vote based on charisma and rockstar appeal because they can’t be arsed to make thoughtful decisions about their votes. I’m tired of this demographic stereotyping and I’m disappointed that Bob Herbert succumbed to such lazy journalism.
Links roundup
Two things tonight:
One: links roundup
Two: Tomorrow is Super Tuesday! Get out and vote! So, on to the first item on tonight’s agenda.
Meowser at Shakesville posts on a proposed bill in Mississippi that would prohibit restaurants from serving people deemed obese (to be defined by the state government). This is about the most unproductive way of dealing with obesity that I can think of, one that tramples on peoples’ rights, legislates segregation, and has approximately 0% of actually helping obese people lose weight in a healthy manner. It’s classic Republican thinking, although the bill has bipartisan sponsorship, in that responsibility for obesity is foisted strictly upon the individual and no allowance is made at addressing the (sub)urban planning, economic, and social factors that affect obesity.
Pocochina posts on why voting against Clinton because she’s “divisive” is simply a more sophisticated form of victim blaming.
What I’m talking about, though, is some very sophisticated victim-blaming. Does anyone think … for a friggin’ second that Hillary Clinton woke up one day and said “I want to be divisive! I want to be hated, lied about, called the most foul words that we as a society use, and I want it to happen every day, in front of the international press! I want to spend the rest of my career apologizing for the most humiliating months of my life. I’d especially love it if prominent conservatives would score points with the press by saying horrible things about my child.* I think that will be good for me, good for my agenda and party, and especially good for the country!” … So when Obama and his Adoring Fans cite Hillary’s alleged divisiveness as a reason to vote for him and not her, they are actively suggesting that we allow the Republicans to select our candidate, because they are loud and angry and scary. Bad people did something to someone, so to make the bad people happy, punish the person they did it to, and then we will all – what? Make s’mores together? I don’t think so.
Along a similar line, I’m linking again to Kate Harding’s post on “electability” and why the idea’s fucked up:
By all means, if you don’t want to vote for Clinton or Obama — whatever your reasons — don’t do it. But for pete’s sake, don’t vote against them just because you believe that’s what assholes will do. …
The fact is, we can’t know who’s electable and who’s not, because this country is big and complicated — and because we’ve never tried to elect an African-American or woman president before. Trying is the only way to find out if that’s possible. That means giving up the safety net of nominating a white man so we can sidestep the issues of racism and sexism. It means facing those issues head-on, and having faith that the bigots will not win. It means thinking about all the people who will vote for this candidate, and dismissing all those who would vote against him or her solely on the basis of sex or race as the bigoted fuckwits they are — not deserving of our mental energy, much less our fear.
… I am damn sure I couldn’t live with myself if I voted according to which candidate I think a bunch of sexist and/or racist assholes would find most palatable.
Marcella Chester posts on victim-blaming in rape cases. One of my colleagues thinks that victim-blaming doesn’t exist. Well. Maybe I should start a collection of links about “grey rape” and women who “deserved it” and “led him on” to point him, and other idealistic but naive people, to. I’m also contemplating a collection of links to misogynist press on Clinton, because the same person doesn’t think that the national media’s articles, talk shows, cartoons, and opinion pieces about Clinton have been misogynist at all. Nope, they’re just objective evaluations of her personality, policies, and stances that are the same as what would be applied to any of her male competitors.
So-called mixed signals is one of the biggest lies out there. This lie gives cover to the majority of rapists and puts the responsibility for the rapist’s crime onto the victim. …
Think about the defense attorneys who talk about alleged rape victims who didn’t clearly communicate their lack of consent through screaming and trying to scratch the rapist’s eyes out. The default is that the rape victim is to blame for rape and the rapist gets a free pass.
Marcella Chester again, on complaints about “Uppity and Passive Women” and how that relates to ideas of properly masculine/feminine roles and media coverage of Clinton’s campaign.
I put these 2 classifications for women together — even though the complainers seem to want opposite things from women — because these 2 complaints are often used strategically to box women in so that no matter what they do they can be deemed to be wrong.
The only way for women to succeed in this environment is to refuse to fall into the trap laid by the complainers.
The Ethicurean – I don’t usually link to posts with vid clips in them, because I don’t like to watch them. However, this post on
graphic footage of workers at a California slaughterhouse using forklifts, high-pressure water sprays, wooden sticks, and electric shocks to get sick cattle up on their feet so they can pass USDA inspection and be processed into America’s food supply
is worth watching, because it brings home the cost of industrial agriculture.
Melissa McEwan at Shakesville on Obama’s difficulties with defending himself: “But I’m having a hard time getting past Obama’s communication problem, and his (and his supporters’) admonitions to trust him. Have faith; he knows what he’s doing.” Lots of quotes and explication at the post.
Shark-fu at Shakesville on the importance of standing up and participating in the political process (hint, hint: VOTE!):
So, we have to be politically present…women, young people, people of color, seniors, LGBT people, the disabled, the poor, workers, immigrants, religious minorities and any and all combinations of all of the above must stand up and step forward into political life.
No one will speak for me as well as I can so you can bet your ass a bitch is standing up…
Mark Bittman at the NYT, “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” A good article on the environmental, economic, and health costs of producing cheap meat that’s widely available to all. It’s a reality that the choices you make in your diet affect other people, and it’s high time that we all started thinking about it. That steak on your plate isn’t just a steak that magically appeared there; it came from a butchered animal, one that was probably raised in a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) that produced toxic waste, pollution, runoff into the local water table, and fostered antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as well as a wretched quality of life for the animal.
Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”
I realize that buying meat from pastured, sustainbly-raised animals grown and butchered by local farmers and butchers is expensive and in many cases difficult (I couldn’t find a local butcher when I was in college). However, I think it’s worth wondering if meat really should be as cheap, price-wise, as it is, and whether or not that price represents the true cost of the meat in terms of environmental damage and other externalized costs.
Jon Mooallem in the NYT Mag, “The Afterlife of Cellphones.” An intriguing read on the cellphone-refurbishment and cellphone-reclamation trades, i.e. what happens to your cellphone after you recycle it.
Americans threw out just shy of three million tons of household electronics in 2006. This so-called e-waste is the fastest-growing part of the municipal waste stream and, depending on your outlook, either an enormous problem or a bonanza. E-waste generally contains substances that, though safely sequestered during each product’s use, can become hazardous if not handled properly when disposed. Those products also hold bits of precious metals like silver, copper, platinum and gold.
In other words, recycle your electronics! They can leak heavy metals and other toxins into the ground if improperly disposed of (read: tossed into the garbage bin with normal trash); I’ve definitely been tempted to toss my old laptop battery and old phones into the garbage, because I haven’t yet figured out what to do with hazmat recycling in San Francisco, but after reading that article I’ve decided not to let my laziness trump environmentalism. It’d be especially shameful these days, when I can find out everything I need to know about disposing of electronic waste simply by googling ‘electronics recycle San Francisco.’
On a side note, if you have old cell phones that you’re no longer using, you can return them to most cell phone stores, regardless of where you bought them or who your carrier is. AT&T, Best Buy, LG Electronics, Motorola, Nokia, Office Depot, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Sprint, Staples and T-Mobile accept cell phones and chargers for recycling. There are three T-Mobile stores on Market St., a main thoroughfare in SF, so I dropped my phone at the one closest to work and it turns out they also took chargers, too!
2008 is the Year of the Potato! – all hail that gloriously delicious and versatile tuber!
