Fun With Play-Dough

While John McCain is trying his hardest to find a balance between hitting the campaign trail, and avoiding Bush like he’s the plague, syphilis, and West Nile all rolled into one, his wife Cindy took another stab at Michelle Obama. Should we prepare for a catfight? Hardly; Cindy simply doesn’t have what it takes. Appearing on Good Morning America, she –again- pulled out the patriotism issue.
“I don’t know why she said what she said,” Cindy uttered, “I have always been proud of my country.”
Maybe someone should explain to her that, first of all, she needs an originality boost and come up with some new ammo; second, there have been plenty of times in the history of the US (including today) when pride’ was/is not appropriate. Acknowledging that doesn’t make anyone less patriotic; in fact, being able to admit your country isn’t always perfect is a sign you care enough to make it better. If Cindy is so proud, she must think there’s no need for any kind of change. That is an easy position if you have millions in the bank, but for those of us that cry a little on the inside each time we see the prices soar, things could definitely improve.
I am not proud of the economy. I am not proud of the fact that millions of children are uninsured. I am not proud of the 40 % of people in this country that are functionally illiterate. I am not proud of the Katrina victims that have been left to fend for themselves. I am not proud of the 1-in-5 Iraq veterans that suffer from brain injuries, PTSD, and depression. I am not proud of water boarding, the lackluster response of this administration to global warming, and the billions that we continue to spend on weapons. But then, I am of course a stinking Liberal who can’t find anything good about the current administration. Or about the man who tries to simultaneously distance himself from, and follow in the footsteps of, the lovely Mr. Bush.

Michelle Obama needs an image makeover. With a great education, killer looks, and an impressive career, she doesn’t have what it takes to be our First Lady. Or so a certain sick part of the press corps seems to think; why else are the headlines spelling disaster?

Fox News called her “Obama’s baby mama,” a derogatory term for an unwed mother. Christopher Hitchens, a Slate columnist, claimed — with scant evidence — that her college thesis proved she was once influenced by black separatism. National Review presented her as a scowling “Mrs. Grievance.” (Source: New York Times)

In reporting this, is the Times pointing an accusing finger, or is it merely using the story as an excuse to repeat the nonsense, the way Jeremiah Wright’s comments were played over and over? It’s an old trick; the “we didn’t call her that, somebody else did” argument. Case in point: “The caricatures of Mrs. Obama as the Angry Black Woman confound her, friends say” the NYT goes on to write. 

And then, of course, bloggers like me have to add fuel to the fire by repeating and chewing over every word, and there’s nobody to edit us. Oy.

Michelle Obama has also been called “too negative, too angry, and too sarcastic”; I think what that means is she’s too intelligent, and in some people’s eyes, that makes her a bitch. In an attempt to convince the voters she can be warm and fuzzy, she’s now co-hosting “the View” as well as appearing in Us Magazine (I thought that was a gossip rag, but okay). While Us Magazine can be discarded as an old fashioned attempt at ‘dumbing down for the masses’, the View is more complicated. Although the regular members are reasonably intelligent, too much disagreement is discouraged; topics are predictable, controversy is kept to a minimum, bickering with Barbara is not allowed (you got that, Star Jones?) These are smart women, but in daytime talk shows, even smart women are expected to color within the lines.

Meantime, not a word (yet) on Cindy McCain’s hair (too blond, too perfect?), her figure (advertising an unhealthy beauty ideal?), her smile (too plastic?), her former drug use (too real, too human?), or fortune (too big?). If I was her, I’d get ready; the smell of blood is in the air. No matter how many times McCain asks the press to not attack the women, I very much doubt the press will listen.

With everyone distracted by flooding and tornadoes, the political race is slow to heat up. Ron Paul finally left the race, although he has announced some vague plans to build an organization to help recruit and elect “limited government Republicans”. His presidential bid, according to Paul, is making way for a larger campaign for freedom. He’s calling is “the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty”. 
He’s apparently forgetting the only thing we want to be free from is him. That’s why you didn’t get the nomination, doofus.

In the New York Times today, there were a few examples of the way sexism has reared its ugly head during Clinton’s run for the nomination. It doesn’t matter much, now that all is said and done, but it makes for interesting reading:

Whenever she raises her voice, there’s a danger that she starts to sound a little bit shrill.
(John Neffinger, on Hardball with Chris Matthews)

You all saw the famous photo of Hilary from the weekend and what, looking like 92 years old. If that’s the face of experience, I think it’s going to scare away a lot of the independent voters that are on the fence. (Michelle Malkin)

When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future”. And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear: “Take out the garbage.” (Mark Rudov)

The reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a frontrunner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. She won because everybody felt: ‘My God, this woman stood up under humiliation.’ (Chris Matthews)

…looking like everyone’s first wife, standing outside a probate court..(Mike Barnicle, talking about how Hillary looks at Obama)

I could, in addition, whine a little bit about all the nagging about her pantsuits, but to be honest, she did wear that orange one quite often. Besides, I think it kind of evens things out with the bitching about Obama’s lapel pin- or lack thereof.

So what petty things will we be hearing about now that the nomination is cinched, and it’s only McCain and Obama we can focus on? Obama’s bike helmet? McCain’s thinning hair and bad teeth? Whatever it is, I’m sure we’ll find out soon.

Forget the separation of Church and State: the hunt is on for conservative Christian voters. Whether they, indeed, are struggling to make up their mind remains to be seen; the Obama camp, in the meantime, isn’t taking any chances. Barack is courting the church crowds, while McCain sits idly by. Perhaps the Republicans expected Obama to stay away from religion, since the whole Jeremiah Wright deal didn’t go over so well? But then, McCain hasn’t booked a lot of successes either; his little flirtation with Pastor Hagee ended in a bitter break-up.

Time to ask the question: how does one go about getting the conservative Christian vote?

First there is the abortion issue: Obama is in favor of abortion rights (as is, by the way, the constitution) and McCain, although officially against (he’s proposed criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions), gives the impression he doesn’t really give a crap. No points for either.

Does it help if one attends church? For Obama that question has been answered: it depends on the church. McCain, once again, has been tight-lipped on that account. He was born and raised an Episcopalian, but now attends a Baptist church, and identifies himself as Baptist. He considers America a Christian Nation, and thinks that the most important thing for voters is to ask “whether their candidate will carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition”.

I despise that term, Judeo-Christian. It suggests a brotherly bond, a certain sameness between Judaism and Christianity that doesn’t exist. Sure, we have things in common, but so do many faiths; and we disagree on the issue most central to the Christian Church, its backbone if you will, namely, the deity of Jesus Christ.

Use of the term Judeo-Christian also suggests that the Christian Church is willing to allow us Jews into its small circle of friends, at the exclusion of anybody else. No one has ever heard of a Buddha-Christian Coalition, or Muslim-Christian heritage. Leaving all other religions in the cold –not to speak of atheists- is unacceptable to anyone who has any respect for those differences that make us great. Plus, we can’t simply assume there is any kind of homogeny among either Christians or Jews. What McCain is really doing without saying it out loud, is reminding us that Obama’s middle name is neither Jewish nor Christian, but Arabic. I hesitate to guess how many Americans there still are with questions about that middle name.

The rights of gay Americans unfortunately also fall under the religion umbrella. Obama is for, McCain is against; he not only opposes gay marriage, he is also against gays serving openly in the military. I have never understood what the problem is; does he think that all gays fit the stereotypical Musicals and Fashion mold? By that rationale, he would think Lesbians are either truck drivers or high school football coaches; if that were the case, he should actively pursue these lesbian Wonder Women for his military purposes! Of course, I am being silly; the bottom line is that McCain’s verbal support of the party line has hardly convinced the conservative voters they should back him.

Highly publicized spats surrounding Wright (Obama) and Hagee, Dobson, and Parsley (McCain) make it even more likely that conservative voters stay home in the fall. And frankly, with snubs left and right, and more than one minister spewing hate-filled sermons, one must ask: Does either McCain or Obama really want these voters? How far does a candidate need to go to convince these voters to come out and place that oh-so important checkmark on the ballot?

And what about the conservative voters that aren’t just one issue voters; what will they do?

When the media complains about Big Bad Hillary, questions why she stayed in the race so long, and why it’s taking her all the way into Saturday to deliver her concession speech, there is only one answer: because she has no choice.

Louisa May Alcott, Eleanor Roosevelt, Marie Curie; we only remember them because they were exceptions to the rule. Although women nowadays can and do more than ever before, we still reel at the thought of an independent, strong woman sitting her posterior down in the Oval Office. Is Hillary out because of sexism? Partially, yes. Certainly there are people out there that wouldn’t dream of voting for her, because of her gender. Like the woman in Kentucky, who was interviewed by CNN and claimed “a woman’s place is in the home”, thereby embarrassing many Kentuckians (Kentuckynese, Kentucks) who can’t all be that out of touch. And Hillary wasn’t even the first female candidate to go after the nomination- that questionable honor goes to Victoria Woodhull.

Questionable, because if Hillary thought at times the press treated her unfairly, Woodhull had it much worse. Woodhull, born in 1838, owned her own newspaper and was the first female stockbroker on Wall Street. We have her to thank for the 8-hour workday; she was the first person to have the Communist Manifesto translated into English. She ran for President in 1872, after being nominated by the Equal Rights Party. This was incidentally also the first political party to nominate an African American for Vice President, in the person of Frederick Douglass. Needless to say, Woodhull’s attempts caused an uproar during a time when women did not yet have the right to vote. The press swallowed her whole and then spat her out; accusations of adultery with married men began to surface. When ignoring the bad press didn’t work, she turned to Reverend Ward Beecher, the father of Harriet Beecher-Stowe. He refused to come to her aid, and a nasty back and forth ensued, with Woodhull (justly) accusing Beecher of sleeping around, and Woodhull’s name being dragged through the mud. The government chose sides, and “Wicked Woodhull” spent Election Day in prison. It wasn’t a matter of Victoria not knowing her place; it was the rest of the world that was confused about the capabilities of women. Unfortunately, the website dedicated to her hits the nail on the head when it states:

“It’s been nearly 128 years, and still no woman has made it to the White House. No person of color has even made it to the Vice Presidency. Money is still a major obstacle for candidates. The private lives of public figures are still an issue. The people still feel the politicians aren’t representing them. It seems little has changed in politics in the past century”. (Source: http://www.victoria-woodhull.com/index.htm)

Let’s hope that, with Obama as the presumptive nominee, we can at least break part of that cycle. An even more wonderful development would be if he did choose Hillary as his running mate. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman on the US Supreme Court, and she paved the way. Sally Ride was the first woman in space, and she paved the way. Maya Lin designed the Vietnam memorial in Washington DC, as well as the Civil Rights Monument in Montgomery, Alabama. Clara Barton founded the Red Cross. Susan B. Anthony gave us women the right to vote, Pearl S. Buck was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, and Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize period, and she won it twice. Esther Peterson fought for equal pay for women. Helen Keller needs no introduction. Hillary Clinton belongs in that list, as the first Female Vice President of the United States. Once that so important “first” is out of the way, the field will be wide open. The women back in 1872 may have been ahead of their time, but they already knew: it is time for a woman in the White House.