Five Things about Nominating a Democrat

1. Clip of the Week


Behold, the anti-viral video of the election season. The great juxtaposition between this poorly made, ill-advised video and the gracefully crafted, Obama-supporting "Yes We Can" video shows the gaping disparity between a candidate who "gets it" and a candidate who, despite being a millionaire, can't buy a clue. I'm even a little suspicious this video is a clever job by an opponent camp to undermine Hillary's "cool factor." Because, seriously, if this was the work of a Hillary supporter, they need to take it down. Promptly.

2. Newsflash! Hillary is not the feminist candidate. Unless you're still thinking like a feminist of the 60s.

I have actually heard from the mouths of women in Kansas City--tough, ambitious, ball-busting women who most likely identify as "feminists"--that their support of Hillary Clinton boils down to her gender--as if supporting a man in favor of a female candidate is akin to supplying arms to Al Qaeda. I'd just like to point out to them a few opinions published on the matter in recent days.

First, Camille Paglia wrote on salon.com:

The old-guard feminist establishment has also rushed out of cold storage to embrace Hillary Clinton via tremulous manifestoes of gal power that have startlingly exposed the sentimental slackness of thought that made Gloria Steinem and company wear out their welcome in the first place. Hillary's gonads must be sending out sci-fi rays that paralyze the paleo-feminist mind -- because her career, attached to her husband's flapping coattails, has sure been heavy on striking pious attitudes but ultra-light on concrete achievements.

Then, Maureen Dowd wrote in her op-ed column for the NY Times about Hillary that:

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she’s learned from her mistakes, but that’s not a compelling pitch.

Well said, ladies.

My two cents: Since when is there a feminist law that says we have to stand by each other no matter what? Men don't stand by each other just because they all have testicles. They dog each other out on the regular. In fact, their competitiveness with each other is rooted in their DNA. I, for one, am perfectly okay with women being at odds with each other. There are a lot of unsavoury characters out there, men and women, and no one should have to play nice with anyone who gives them the heebie jeebs on a gut level.

Also, if a woman candidate wants to say that she has had to fight to get where she is because of her gender and uses it to "connect" with a constituency, I am not okay with her then going on and on about her 30 years of experience being the wife of a politician. It's pandering and it's disingenuous. If you're running a campaign built on the fact that you're a woman who has fought to get to the top in a man's world, you're NOT going to impress me by telling me about all the great things your husband did.

And I'm also not impressed that you're still married to a guy who cheated on you in the most public way possible and made a string of poor personal choices that led to a conservative takeover of our government. I might vote for Bill Clinton, I might even sleep with him...but I would absolutely not MARRY him. Or stay married to him in this case. Or maybe, if I was so disturbingly bent on gratifying my political ego by running for president one day, I would blindly "stand by my man." But then, I don't pick out my clothes according to what a poll says either.

I think this all just brings up a lot of interesting points about the "old" feminist establishment (to which I believe Hillary belongs) and how they've, unfortunately, positioned themselves as victims for so long. This has ultimately backfired, spurring the post-feminist feminists who want to embrace being "females without limits" minus the chip on the shoulder of the previous generation. I'm not necessarily saying one is stronger than the other, it's just an evolution of the movement. And, personally, I'm ready to move on.

3. It's the economy, stupid.

Obama was in Wisconsin yesterday talking about the economy.

"We have greater income disparity in this country than we've seen since the first year of the Great Depression," he said.

He's totally playing from the Clinton '92 handbook. How ironic. Except we're in deeper shit now than we were then AND we're trying to undo EIGHT years of Bush instead of four. Which is why it's good he's recognizing the strength of this issue. Even though WJC brought the country together with the same message during his campaign in 92, he went on to divide us so brutally over the next 8 years, it hardly seems like the impact is withstanding.

Obama then called out McCain on how ill-equipped he is to even approach the issue with the following slam-dunk...

"if John McCain wants to debate the specifics of how well the economy has worked for ordinary families over the last seven years, that is a debate that I am happy to have, because the American people know that Bush’s policies have not worked for ordinary Americans."

In yo face, grandpa!

4. The parodies in this campaign are abundant.

• This is where they got Hillary good.
• The blog where Obama is a Messiah.
• And the Onion asks, "Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact?"
  

5. Is the delegation half-empty or half-full?
It's interesting to me how the candidate you support has become an indicator of your tendency towards optimism or cynicism on the Democrat side. At least, that's the way it's being framed by the campaigns.

Or maybe I should rephrase.

Depending on who you're supporting, you're either an optimist or a pragmatist, according to everybody who comments on political blogs.

I think this is horse shit. To reduce one's political leanings down to something as subjective as their tendency to have a positive outlook vs. a realistic approach is ridiculous. Why does there always have to be an US or THEM category? Can't we all just agree that we all exercise our critical thinking skills in different ways and leave it at that? Disagree all you want, debate til your face turns blue...but don't assume just because someone supports Obama that they're a crackpot hippie optimist or that anyone supporting Hillary is a crotchedy old cynic. Unless, of course, you're making a parody of the situation. And then, by all means, generalize your ass off. It makes me laugh.