Watch me makeup my mind instead of my face. Yet more reasons to despise Palin and feel insulted by McCain's choice of her as running mate.

I think McCain thought that all us Clinton supporters would go "Oh man, she has a uterus! I'm voting for McCain now!" Did he honestly think we wouldn't find out about her politics? Or is she really just a sexy appeasement for the religious right?

Does that mean my body must always be a source of pain? While the image of First Lady as the pinnacle of American womanhood is nothing new, this re-packaging of Michelle Obama is really pissing me off. The Obama campaign is doing an image makeover on her to make sure she doesn't appear Like Hillary. She co-hosted "The View" and graced the cover of "Us Weekly" doing her best soccer mom impression. Says a friend:

"[Michelle] is not the least bit interested in being a co-president or participating in policy decisions…Her first priority as a first lady would be that the girls are OK, and to continue to be the outstanding mother that she is."

This would be nauseating without the article's headline of "Why Barak loves her." Why? Because she shops at Target, why else? You didn't think it had to do with her accomplishments, her intelligence, or her moxie, did you?

Of course, the campaign has to wrap her up in traditional gender roles precisely because of her talent. A smart, outspoken, accomplished woman is bad enough, but one who is not only African American but who actively embraces her heritage is downright frightening. Consequently, they "soften" her, "maternalize" her, and basically white-wash her. And I do mean "white." She's coming off as a regular June Cleaver with her pearls and her carpool.

In the context of this election cycle, this development is particularly upsetting. Democratic voters were given the option of the most accomplished black presidential candidate ever to campaign or the most accomplished woman presidential candidate ever to campaign. For better or worse, the black man won. But a truckload of sexism accompanies that progressive victory. If the progress of one group of people comes at the expense of another, is it really a success?

Flex our muscles show them we’re stronger than the rest. I don't know about you, but I love these peek-inside-the-Bush-administration tell-alls by ex-Bush cronies that keep coming out. They make me feel quite vindicated. Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's is a real treat.

Doesn't this excerpt remind you of a certain Democratic golden boy we all know and love?

Ironically, much of Bush's campaign rhetoric (in 1999-2000) had been aimed at distancing himself from the excesses of Clinton's permanent campaign style of governing. The implicit meaning of Bush's words was that he would bring an end to the perpetual politicking and deep partisan divisions it created. Although Washington could not get enough of the permanent campaign, voters were seemingly eager to move beyond it.

Bush emphasized this sentiment during the campaign. He would "change the tone in Washington." He would be "a uniter, not a divider." He would "restore honor and dignity to the White House." He would govern based on what was right, not what the polls said. He would, in short, replace the cynicism of the 1990s with a new era of civility, decency, and hope.

Yes, we can!

Where's your head at. Seriously, Bush Administration. Tax rebates just ain't gonna cut it.


see more hipster robot webcomics and pixel t-shirts

I'm coming slow but speeding. I must be pretty desperate if I get excited every time I come across a tidbit where some hard line Christian zealot takes a moderate--or, gasp, even liberal--stance on a hot-button issue. But I think this Newsweek article is actually promising:

[Kansan megachurch pastor Adam] Hamilton wants pro-choice and pro-life advocates to join forces to reduce the number of abortions and he enumerates seven areas where they could find common ground. Let both sides agree that adequate information about birth control can help prevent pregnancy, he says. And let both sides agree that the longer a pregnancy progresses, the more morally problematic an abortion becomes.

I agree! I happily agree! Let's do this!

Then, of course, I find out that my tribesmen are joining the hard line Christian zealot stance on a hot-button issue, and I get all depressed again. A pro-abstinence website for Jewish teens claiming condoms don't work? For shame, Orthodox Union, for shame.

We're not the ones who're meant to follow. Happy Super Tuesday, everyone! There's a great interview with a candidate you didn't even know was running for president on Jezebel today. Mike Gravel is too much of an idealist for me, but everything he says about women's rights and LGBT issues is right on. He also makes a fantastic point for all you power-mongers out there:

If you vote for power over substance, then you won't ever get either. You've got to vote for substance regardless of who you think will win, because you'll see that substance will win out in the end.

For those of you who have yet to vote and don't feel like slogging through months worth of press coverage, make an educated decision with the League of Women Voter's nonpartisan primary guide.

Get the full primary scorecard here.

And remember, you lose your right to complain if you don't vote!

What it feels like for a girl. Man oh man, Super Tuesday is gonna be one hell of a nailbiter. I offer you some very exciting words for the future of the country and the Democratic Party courtesy of Hillary Clinton (And read this article for some great commentary):

"I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business," Clinton began. "It is a trust. It is the most complicated organization, but it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about (what we do) to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country. With all due respect, we have a president who basically ran as the 'CEO/MBA President' and look what we got! I am not too happy about the results."

The most amazing thing about all of this, I think, is that people are really taking her seriously. There has never been a female candidate for president than anyone was willing to pay attention to. In fact, there has never been a female candidate or a minority candidate that anyone was willing to pay attention to. Yet here we have two non-traditional presidential candidates who are not only attractive candidates in their own right, but they beat out the white guy to boot. For the most part, people are paying attention to the mssage and not the stereotypes and really conflicted about who will make the better president. How remarkable that two underdogs can come out on top.

This is such an exciting time!

Now I know how Joan of Arc felt. Please Lord, don't let this happen again. Please. Haven't we suffered enough?

I am matching the big boys one for one. In this New York Times op-ed, Gloria Steinam explains what I've been saying about the Obama-Clinton struggle this entire campaign season, only much more articulately. To wit:

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer....

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Sing it!

Make them boys go crazy. Happy Caucus Day, everyone! Here's a funny little snippet from a New York Times article about the plethora of attractive Democratic candidates:

Instead of the usual voter complaints about choosing among unattractive options, there are meditative conversations about Senator Barack Obama’s freshness versus Gov. Bill Richardson’s international résumé versus John Edwards’s commitment to the underprivileged versus the historic prospect of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s becoming the first female president.

That's the only good thing they can think to say about Clinton? That's all she's got, a uterus? Really?! Apparently there's no historic significance in the prospect of Obama's becoming the first black president. He has a penis, so therefore we can talk about other issues.

They’re writing songs of love, but not for me. There's a funny little moment in this Vanity Fair article about Michelle Obama where a Democratic activist tries to bash Hillary Clinton by Taking It Personally:

"I trust Michelle to tell you how it is, good or bad," says one longtime Democratic activist at an Obama event in New Hampshire. "But I don't trust Hillary to tell me the truth, and I don't want to deal with all the history of Bill's infidelity. Why didn't she kick his ass out? I know many women who would be voting for her if she had kicked him out." She scowls, and then confides that her own unfaithful husband left her with two children and another on the way. "I don't need Hillary's baggage," she says. "I've got enough of my own."

Are you really going to elect the next president based on the dynamics of his or her married life? I mean, that rules out Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, Thompson, and Biden right there. That's not too bad if you're a Democrat because you can still vote for Obama, Edwards or Richardson, but if you're a Republican you get to chose between Romney, Paul or (dear Lord) Huckabee. There's got to be a better criteria for presidential competency than marital harmony. Not to say that infidelity is excusable, but I'm not going to label FDR as a bad president just because he couldn't keep it in his pants.

Maybe sobbing over a copy of Heartburn would make her feel better? Those rescipes probably make for good comfort food.

Let's rock with the tough girls. Bill Moyers Journal had an amazing segment tonight about the effect of new media on politics. Lots of amazing conversation about the rampant misogyny and damaging effects of Hillary Clinton-bashing. Definitely worth watching.

Where is the questioning where is the protest song? A ralling cry for the masses, courtesy of Bill Clinton:

"Do I hope you vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America, and good for the world. But, more than that I came here to tell you today, don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you."

Hopefully the voting public will listen this time around.

Watch me make up my mind instead of my face. Enough is enough. Journalists, would you please get over your fascination with Hillary Clinton's supposed gender role-bending and actually evaluate her based on the strength of her ideas instead of the cut of her collar? Have you never met a woman who is composed and intelligent enough to hold her own in a heated debate? Apparently not. Instead, you talk about how she makes for the scariest political Halloween costume or that there's a "toughness backlash" because Clinton is trying to be a manly-girl. Frankly, I don't want a president who's going to get all mushy and blubber about his or her feelings. I've had enough of that, thank you very much.

Maybe you're all just worried because Clinton is kicking Democratic ass in the polls. Maybe you're worried that you might actually have to, you know, respect a woman. Get over yourselves and treat her like any other candidate. Stop expecting her to bake you cookies and read you bedtime stories just because she has a uterus. Hillary Clinton is not your mother. She is a Wellesley College- and Yale Law School-educated, seasoned politician. Get over yourselves and start doing your jobs. Also, start spelling her name right. She spells "Hillary" with two l's, assholes.


(On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming Clinton is elected President, the number of rapes increased because of all the "emasculated" men. The same phenomenon happened in the 1980s backlash over the Women's Movement).

Oh god I love my dirty uncle Sam. Giuliani's New Hampshire radio ad promoting his health insurance plan is making me ill:

"I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago," Giuliani says in the spot. "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine."

First of all, where in the heck did he get these statistics from? And where did he come up with the seemingly arbitrary sums of money that Americans need to "buy" this fantastic, high-quality health care he's talking about?

Any doctor worth his stethoscope will tell you that "delaying or not receiving treatment can lead to serious illness and avoidable health problems" [source]. Giuliani's plan assumes that the average American can afford to plunk down $7,500 on an insurance plan. And somehow, this will magically reduce the cost of health insurance.

The bottom line is that if you're able to afford health insurance in this country like Giuliani can, you won't die. But stupid UK with its comprehensive health insurance will KILL YOU. Hoorah for oligarchical America, where the rich can buy their way to perfect health and the rest of us can die like dogs.

Come lie down beside me. Is it just me, or is the sight of seven-year-olds begging their parents to talk to them about abstinence really creepy? I'm all for protecting children from premature exposure to sexual content, but what about the kids in this "public service" ad? You can almost see the director yelling at that six-year-old black girl with the 'fro to annunciate "sexxx." Leave it to the Bush Administration to exploit children in their quest to mobilize the Republican base.

Click here for The A.V. Club's hilarious analysis.

Worse than you would ever know. I do not agree at all with this article. Anyone who's every studied the Amish or Fundamentalist Mormons can see a serious difference in the function of these two cultures and, consequently, their right to protection by the First Amendment.

The Amish refusal to pay Social Security taxes is balanced by the fact that they, as a group, refuse to accept such governmental aid in the first place. If they are religiously opposed to participating in the tax in any way, then why should they be forced into the system? In contrast, for every $1 Arizona's Fundamentalist Mormons pay in taxes, they receive $8 in government aid--a practice known as "bleeding the beast." Here is a religion that views all non-members as heathenous others who do not deserve their respect or consideration, a far cry from the Amish adherence to the Golden Rule.

Furthermore, Fundamentalist Mormons believe that polygamy is the key to creating Heaven's kingdom on Earth. According to a tract written in 1842 titled The Peace Maker, monogamy is responsible for a litany of crimes such as divorce, adultery, domestic violence, premarital sex, and abortion. Plural marriage, and more importantly the wives' complete and total subservience to her husband's will, is the absolute law of God and will restore order to our corrupt modern society. Girls are brainwashed from birth that their soul purpose on Earth is to marry and produce as many children as possible to serve their husband. As soon as girls hit puberty, they are married off. As they are taught from birth that their obedience is God's will, how can they refuse?

There is an extreme difference in the refusal of the Amish to pay Social Security or allow their children to take high school science versus the rampant statutory rape and domestic violence of the Mormon Fundamentalist community. Considering that taxpayers are financing the fundamentalist' violent life style, how can law enforcement in good conscious ignore and, therefore, tacitly condone this way of life? The First Amendment protects religious practice but it does not sanction violence against others. Reynolds v. United States refused to protect polygamy because "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Unfortunately, this doctrine is not being upheld as it should be.

[All discussion of Mormon Fundamentalism taken from Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer]

Tonight everything is over. This was a really exciting week for us liberals, wasn't it? I mean, gay scandals and prominent Republican resignations are like Christmas to me. A gay couple even managed to get married in Iowa, of all places. How exciting!

Of course, this is horrifying to our Republican friends, especially to Mitt Romney, who is probably having flashbacks to his own failure at not being able to stop those pesky homosexuals from obtaining equal rights in Massachusetts. The narrow-minded Mormon had this to say about Iowa:

"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

Okay, Mitt, I don't think you understand what this whole judicial system thing is all about. In the United States, every judge, generally right down to the level of the magistrate, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, at least as applied in a particular case. In fact, there's this whole court system so that people can appeal judicial rulings. It's almost like we have a system of checks and balances where the three branches of government (remember those?) are imbued with special powers to limit and shape the others. Also, Mitt, how can you say that the judge wasn't approved by the people? If the judge was appointed and approved by the legislature, which is the same legislature that ratified Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act in the first place, and the same legislature elected and presumably representative of the people, then how come the legislature can ratify an unconstitutional law but cannot approve judicial appointments? I mean, if the same legislators representing the same "will of the people" do two different actions, then how come one is legitimate and the other is a gross insult? Clearly, if a judge is approved by the elected legislature, then he is representing the will of the people. Are you calling the Iowa legislature incompetent? I don't think they'll like that very much.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't feel comfortable supporting a presidential candidate with such a gross lack of understanding of the judicial system.

Bigmouth strikes again. Today is a beautiful day, my friends. First Karl Rove, now Gonzales. The only dark spot is the threat of Chertoff taking his place. Haven't we suffered enough?

It's calling out to idiot America. You'd hope that this little controversy would have settled down by now, but apparently Cleavage-Gate is still well under way. Commentators are hypothesizing that Hillary Clinton did this "on purpose" to "soften" her image and up her sex appeal. A candidate as poised as Clinton doesn't slip up and flash Congress by accident.

Why does Hillary Clinton need to defend her womanhood? She's clearly a woman. She clearly gave birth to a daughter. Hell, she went to a women's college. So why does Bill Clinton need to tell "Good Morning America," "I don’t think [Hillary’s] trying to be a man." Yet the media seems to be more and more obsessed with candidate fashion, pointing out the replacement of Hillary's trademark black pantsuit with softer pastel shades! I don't know a thing about her stance on health care or the Middle East Peace process, but at least she's wearing lavender. I'm so relieved!

According to the Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, male candidates receive about 5 percent more issues coverage than do females because of this preoccupation with appearance. Research has also shown that winning women candidates are "typically those who are best able to balance stereotypically masculine and feminine images and issues, posing with children as well as in formal suits, and discussing both health care and defense. Those who are seen as too feminine tend to lose races, while those who are seen as 'too hard' work frantically to soften their images." [Source] Basically, the ladies have to prove they are tough enough to go to war but not too tough so that they won't bake you cookies. We don't really care what they have to say; we just care about how they make us feel.

Let's put it this way: Almost every country in the developed world has been represented by women. Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Norway, France, Finland, Iceland, and New Zealand (to name a few) have all had female heads of government and even more have had female heads of state. Hell, even countries the United States paints as hopelessly backwards such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Rwanda have had women heads of government. Americans have the opportunity to support a strong, intelligent woman who is an exemplary candidate, yet they can't stop arguing about two centimeters of boob long enough to actually judge her by her merits. We are a nation obsessed with image and incapable of intellectual analysis. This really burns my toast.