In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Someone’s looking a little scared…

McCain seeks to delay the first presidential debate between him and Obama because, apparently, the financial crisis needs all of his attention.

I’ll just quote my mom:

Did you hear McCain is calling to call off the Pres debate this Friday? He is trying to be a leader and show compassion and leadership to Americans – but….I KNOW he is a chicken shit and knows that Obama will blow him out of the water and get people riled up against Republicans by association with Bush.

Yep, that’s basically it.

Bigger Questions About Rape in Alaska

Have I mentioned that I love Amie Newman? If you’re not reading her stuff on RHRealityCheck, you should definitely get on board. She has the best explanation I’ve read for why the Sarah Palin Rape Kit controversy matters to all women, and how the supposedly “pro-family” Republican party in fact fosters a culture of violence against women. Charging survivors for their rape kits is only the tip of the iceberg — and Amie is right when she says, “To discuss the rape kit story without addressing what kinds of policies, as a nation, we must put forward in order to address violence against women – the causes of violence, the symptoms and how it can be curbed – does nothing to further the dialogue, find solutions and heal some of our most gaping wounds.”

And those wounds do run deep:

According to Amnesty International, one out of every three women in the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. In the United States, a woman is raped every 6 minutes. In global conflicts and wars, rape is widespread – a tool of war.

Instead of hashing and re-hashing a budget line under Sarah Palin’s mayoralty, we need to put forward questions to be asked about and of the candidates that will allow us to understand what they have done or will do, concretely, to reduce violence against women, at home and abroad.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Alaska’s rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. Alaska also has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women. Ninety percent of Alaskans would vote to increase funding for victim service programs because, according to the coalition, “programs are in dire need of more funding in order to serve the sheer volume of victims.” Seventy-five percent of Alaskans have been or know someone who has been the victim of sexual assault or domestic violence. Alaska’s domestic violence shelters, sexual assault services and programs for survivors have seen a relatively small increase in funding. In 2008, the state budget included an additional $300,000 in funding for victims services programs. In 2009, according to Alaska’s Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Governor Palin’s budget includes an increase in funds to help shelters offset the higher costs of fuel, utilities and insurance.

But the extraordinary levels of violence against women in the state of Alaska and the underlying causes still require a much greater level of state-level funding and oversight. According to the Alliance for Reproductive Justice, who lobbied to address Alaska’s rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, when explicitly asked to address these issues in 2007, the Governor did not respond.

We need to be asking what each of the candidates are doing for women. John McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act, a crucial piece of civil rights legislation, twice. Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was one of VAWA’s biggest proponents. Sarah Palin has said that she thinks women should be legally forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will — even when those pregnancies threaten their health or resulted from rape. McCain is also anti-choice. Both Obama and Biden are strongly pro-choice.

None of that is to say that Obama and Biden are perfectly feminist candidates — there’s a lot more they could be doing, and I hope that they’re pushed to address the tough questions that Amie poses. But both men have spearheaded crucial legislation for women’s rights; McCain and Palin have sought to undermine those rights. Amie asks,

Which set of candidates understands best how to remedy the culture of violence perpetuated against women in this nation and globally? Which set of candidates pro-actively creates policies that address the root causes of rape and sexual assault? Which set of candidates do we trust to raise the status of women in this country and work internationally to do the same? Which set of candidates’ legislative and leadership records reveal genuine attempts at fixing the problems their various constituents face when it comes to rape, sexual assault and other forms of violence against women?

I think the answer is clear enough.

I cannot believe I’m writing this headline, but no, Obama is not the Antichrist. Better luck next election.

Even I hadn’t heard of this one.

In conservative Christian circles and on Christian radio stations, there are even widespread theories that Mr. Obama just may be the Antichrist. Seriously.

John Green, of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, says that about 10 percent of Americans believe we may be in the Book of Revelation’s “end times” and are on the lookout for the Antichrist. A constant barrage of e-mail and broadcasts suggest that Mr. Obama just may be it.

The online Red State Shop sells T-shirts, mugs and stickers exploiting the idea. Some shirts and stickers portray a large “O” with horns, above a caption: “The Anti-Christ.”

To his credit, Mr. McCain himself has never raised doubts about Mr. Obama’s religion. But a McCain commercial last month mimicked the words and imagery of the best-selling Christian “Left Behind” book series in ways that would have set off alarm bells among evangelicals nervous about the Antichrist.

I hadn’t seen the McCain ad, and a google video search turned up this:

…but I honestly had a hard time believing that ad came from a presidential campaign. It looks like something a 14-year-old boy would make as a YouTube one-off. I went to McCain’s website, fully expecting to confirm my suspicions that the ad was a joke.

Well, I was wrong.

So yes, our country is in fact going to Hell — but not because Obama is the Antichrist. Because people are dumb enough to believe this crap (it’s even on Snopes, for pete’s sake). Because “Obama is the Antichrist” is what passes for rational political debate in a country where politicians are seriously trying to court the chunk of the electorate who believe Adam and Eve played with the dinosaurs. Because, instead of calling out (or, hello CNN, firing) people like Glenn Beck, our news media actually entertains their unparalleled idiocy by framing “news” stories with the question, “Is Obama the Antichrist?” Journalism 101: If you pose a question as the lead to your story, the implication is that the answer to the question might be yes.

But we’re mostly going to Hell because presidential candidates can suggest that their opponent is the frigging Antichrist and still be taken seriously.

Can we get Sam Seaborn back too, please?

I’m glad MoDo misses The West Wing as much as I do. Best part:

[T]he idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

And a close second:

GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

Does anyone else miss President Bartlet?

More of The Same — Literally

Last night, I saw a new John McCain attack ad.  I was unable to find it online — please someone let me know if you do — so I’ll describe it for you as best as I remember.  It began with the “celebrity” theme, showing a sort of animated representation of Obama’s acceptance speech at the DNC.  Then the voice over said something along the lines of “once the lights go down, what does he really stand for?”  Cut to some menacing pictures of other Democratic leaders (Chris Dodd???), with the voice over calling them Obama’s “liberal allies” and then telling some lies about how he’s going to raise taxes, saying something about how he opposed offshore drilling, and using a couple of other really standard GOP talking points.  Then it ends with the words . . . “That’s not change, That’s more of the same.”

WTF?

In complete and utter seriousness I ask you: what the hell does John McCain think he’s doing?

First, he tried to steal Obama’s campaign tagline with this “a leader we can believe in” crap.  Then, he completely nonsensically tried to steal the campaign talking point of change, while ignoring that “kicking the bums out” means kicking him and his party out.  And now, they’re trying — again, nonsensically — to steal his newest slogan “thats not change, that’s more of the same.”

Is there something I’m missing that makes this a winning strategy?  Are they just trying to neutralize all of Obama’s arguments because they can’t argue against them?  Do they honestly think that they will somehow get voters to associate “change” with McCain over Obama?  Really?  Because it seems to me that just sticking with the “higher taxes” flat out lie is a smarter strategy.  Is this a good sign for us?  What does it mean?

I do know one thing: if this situation were reversed, we’d be hearing stuff about how the Dems are, yet again, allowing the GOP to set the media narrative and determine which issues really matter in this campaign.  We’d hear about how they’re constantly on the defensive — and interestingly enough, I keep hearing crap about how Obama supposedly is the one on the defensive more than the reverse.  If Obama was stealing McCain’s slogans, commercials, talking points, etc., we’d hear pundits gabbing about how the Democrats ought to stick with their strong points, otherwise voters are just going to go for the “real deal” rather than the imitation.

I’m really interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

Dear Democrats, please let this be true

Can it be true? Can the party really be finally waking up and smelling the coffee and realizing that going after white Southern males is a waste of time and resources?

I’m talking about the white male voter, or at least a certain long-coveted variety thereof. He is variously known as “NASCAR dad” — that shirt-sleeved, straight-talkin’, these-colors-don’t-run fella who votes his cultural values above all else — or “Bubba,” as Steve Jarding and Dave “Mudcat” Saunders affectionately call him in their book, “Foxes in the Henhouse.” Start looking on milk cartons for Bubba because he has vanished, and not a moment too soon: The Democratic obsession with the down-home, blue-collar, white male voter, that heartbreaker who crossed the aisle to the Republicans many decades ago, may finally be coming to a merciful end.

The simplest explanation for Bubba’s absence to date is that none of the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders provides an obvious home for his vote. Despite accusations that Hillary Clinton is prone to dropping her “g’s” when talking to rural or Southern audiences, it’s difficult to imagine the former first lady making overt appeals to a group that regards her with something verging on rabid disgust. Barack Obama? The former Chicago street activist is not easily mistaken for a good ole boy. Ditto for Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson.

Indeed, the only white male Southerner candidate, John Edwards, spends his time talking up issues that have very little to do with NASCAR and who-do-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with kinds of stupidity that gave us George Bush for eight years and a DLC that actually listens to a grown man who calls himself “Mudcat” and says hateful shit like this:

Read More…Read More…

Register for YearlyKos!

kos

Online registration ends this Saturday; after that, registration will be at the door only, and it’ll be more expensive. So register now!

The convention looks like it’s going to be awesome — there are some fantastic panels, and an all-star line-up of speakers. Other reasons to go:

-The Drinking Liberally crew are the “cultural curators.” They’ll be organizing happy hours, after-parties, comedy shows and general debauchery.
-Amazing speakers, including:
Donna Brazile
Atrios
Wesley Clark
Ms. Amanda Marcotte
Gov. Howard Dean
-Gwynn Cassidy of The Real Hot 100
David Alpert
John Aravosis
Sen. Richard Durbin
Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson, and Sen. Christopher Dodd
-Yours truly. And I’ll be speaking on my birthday!

If that’s not enough reason, what is? There are many more speakers who haven’t been announced yet.

That said, registration is pricey, as is getting to Chicago. But I’m hoping to organize some sort of Chicago-area get-together while I’m in town, and I’d love to meet those of you who live near the Windy City. Updates will be posted as the date approaches.