Part one of a two-part article Maureen McCluskey (better known in these parts as Zuzu) and I have had in the works for what seems like ages has just been published at The Guardian's Comment is free America. It's about how the rightwing memes of the 1990s used against the Clintons came to be used against Hillary Clinton during the primary by the Left.
In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher's note for the tome says of its subject: "No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes."Read the whole thing here. Part two will be published tomorrow.
Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole "malevolent, power-mad shrew" thing sounded pretty good, too.
Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.
Without a hint of irony.
"The most precious commodity I have with the American people is that they trust me."—John McCain, on the campaign trail.
The fair market value of that precious commodity? Two Ronpaulbuxxx.
I've read two articles so far this morning that have made me incredibly upset. When am I going to learn not to look at the news until after the coffee kicks in? Anyway, I've managed to have my day ruined by Barack Obama, but before I get into that, I'd like to share an image with you:
Yes, Obama's poorly chosen "bitterly clinging to guns and religion" words have come back to haunt him... in t-shirt form! The text of the shirt reads: "Memo to Obama: I'm 'Bitterly Clinging to Guns and Religion,' (and I'll keep the rest of the Constitution, too!)"
Yes, Uncle Sam is holding a cross, and pointing a gun at the viewer, aka, Obama. Nice, eh? It's really flabbergasting how many people are willing to more or less threaten the life of a Presidential candidate without being labeled terrorists, but I digress.
It's rather ironic that the makers/wearers of these shirts would choose these particular words, as Obama isn't exactly the Boogeyman that's going to take their guns away and force them to burn their Bibles. It makes a convenient slogan and it's a nice way to rile up people who, let's face it, wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but the thing that upsets me is that these people should be lining up to get him into office.
We all know by now that Obama believes "that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives." So, your gun is pretty much safe in your live, warm hands, as far as Obama is concerned. But what about religion? Not to worry, Evangelicals! Obama has your back. (Bolds mine.)CHICAGO - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Of course, "government" wasn't solving these challenges alone, they had social service agencies to help. Once, however, Bush began moving funds from these agencies to "Faith-Based" agencies, many of them were unable to stay afloat due to lack of funding. In addition to the harm done to many organizations, there's also that little problem of the separation of church and state. Tax money funding religious organizations. The possibility of coercion to participate in, or convert to, a particular religion in order to receive services. Forcing religious organizations to compete for government funds. And, of course, the ability to refuse or remove employment to individuals based on faith.* Kingdom Coming, an excellent book by Michelle Goldberg, does a fantastic job of fine-tooth-combing the Faith-Based Initiatives; I highly recommend it. Excerpt:
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck.""The diversion of billions of taxpayer dollars from secular social service organizations to such sectarian religious outfits has been one of the most underreported stories of the Bush presidency. Bush's faith-based initiatives have become a spoils system for evangelical ministries, which are now involved in everything from prison programs and job training to teenage pregnancy prevention, supplanting the safety net that was supposed to catch all Americans. As a result of faith-based grants, a growing number of government-funded social service jobs explicitly refuse to hire Jews, gay people, and other undesirables; such discrimination is defended by the administration and its surrogates in the name of religious freedom. Bringing the disposed to Jesus Christ has become something very close to a domestic policy goal of the United States government. And all this has happened with far less notice or public debate than attended the removal of Terri Schaivo's feeding tube or the halftime baring of Janet Jackson's breast."
According to Obama:Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Allowing any recipient of government funds to "hire and fire based on faith" is not progressive; it's Bushian. And if you seriously believe that hardcore Evangelicals are not going to "require religious tests for recipient of aid," or proselytize, or attempt to convert, I've got this really nice bridge to sell you. It's easy to say you "don't support" this, but how in the world could you possibly police this? It would be impossible to provide any sort of accountability, and this is exactly why people were concerned about Faith-Based social services in the first place.Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
Bullshit. Anyone that has had any sort of contact with social services knows that the vast majority of these organizations are located in the very communities in which they are providing services, just like churches. They are close to the people, they are well-placed to offer help, and to pretend that religious organizations could somehow do this better than trained providers is, to be blunt, fucking insulting.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
Social workers and social service providers are trained in providing services to the needy. We operate under a code of ethics, and we have to be licesnsed before we are allowed to provide clinical services. We're trained to navigate an incredibly difficult system, and to be aware of as many available services as possible. We are held to a very high standard; and all of this is done to minimize harm to those seeking help. Not all religious organizations employ trained social workers, especially individual churches. Operating with no code of ethics or licensure results in no accountability; if someone providing services at a religious organization screws up, they at worst lose their job, but undoubtedly they can find one in another faith-based organization that excludes people that don't hold their faith.
I am not saying that religious organizations can't provide excellent services to the needy, or that they have not successfully been doing so already. But taking even more money from, or that could go to suffering social service organizations in order to provide even more funds for religious organizations is not what I would want a supposedly progressive Presidential candidate to be touting. This is pandering to Evangelicals, pure and simple, and it is exactly what Bush did. It's Republican, and if that's not enough-Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
American Values. Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?
Now, I have a personal stake in this, but the people who have the potential for the most harm caused by such legislation and programs are the poor. Now, I hear lots and lots of praise heaped upon Obama for being a champion of the poor, but I really have to question this when I read stories like the one above, and this one (bolds mine):Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform
As many of you know, I've been pretty critical of Obama since he first announced his candidacy for President. But if there was one thing that I really liked about the guy, it was his stance on welfare. I've never liked welfare reform, and I would hope a progressive Presidential candidate, particularly one that is supposedly supportive of the poor, would not like welfare reform. But winning votes trumps all, and the move to the center continues.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.
"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."
Obama's transformation from opponent to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, Obama has altered his stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping gun ban.
I am incredibly disappointed in both of these stories, and my enthusiasm for an Obama Presidency dwindles daily. The next Democratic President will need to be up to the task of un-doing the mess of the Bush administration, and it scarily looks to me as if, in some ways, Obama will simply continue it. On issues that I find extremely important, he dodges, or simply fails to show up to vote. When he does take a stance on something, I find it very troubling, or in complete opposition to my values. I'm beginning to wonder where all of the "hope and change" that's been promised to me is hiding, because this all looks like more of the same to me.
UPDATE: There has been discussion that the AP article was misleading and incorrect, and Obama has stated:He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.
Discrimination, however, is hardly the only issue at play here, which I will go over in another post later today or tomorrow. If you haven't looked, this is being discussed in comments if you're interested in reading more right now. Needless to say, I'm not very impressed when this "careful monitoring" has yet to be defined; it will be nearly impossible to actually police faith-based organizations to ensure discrimination is not happening.
(Tip of the energy dome to Shaker Amish451 for the image.)
*(I freely admit that I have a personal stake in this decision. As an agnostic, and as an unemployed social worker currently job searching, I find it very troubling that the majority of the jobs that I am applying for are at religious and/or faith-based organizations. While this is, admittedly, selfish, I would like to add that not only would keeping me out of a job harm me, but it also potentially harms the people for whom I could be providing excellent social services. I mean, if you were in trouble and needed someone to help you find housing and health care, would you rather have a dedicated, passionate person to help you, or someone that's more interested in "saving" you?)
Part wev in an ongoing series starting here, waiting and longing for the day at long last when the Bush administration will be finally fucking over.
My pal Brad Reed's got a great piece at AlterNet listing "The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency." While you may disagree with his Top 10—chosen by "rat[ing] each Bush disaster by two main criteria: its body count and its damage to the country's reputation"—you'll no doubt agree these are nonetheless ten pretty spectacular moments in Bushfuckery.
8: North Korea Conducts a Nuclear TestMeanwhile, in today's Boston Globe, Andrew Bacevich (who knows firsthand the intimate pain of the Bush administration's policies) depressingly details "What Bush Hath Wrought," reminding us that "in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy."
In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush stated forthrightly that "the United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." And to show how serious he was, Bush decided to invade Iraq, a country whose vast stockpile contained precisely zero weapons of mass destruction.
But while Bush was busy freedomizing the Iraqis, North Korea -- a country best known for being home of the world's worst government -- steadily built up its nuclear capabilities and eventually conducted a nuclear test in October 2006.
Oopsie-doodles!
Reprised from the LaVena site: An email from a reader at Jezebel alerted me to today’s post there on LaVena Johnson.
This is Private First Class LaVena Johnson of Missouri. An honors student who nonetheless didn’t quite know what she wanted to do with her life, she enlisted in the Army right out of high school in 2003 and was sent to Iraq, where she died. When the Army returned her mutilated body to her grieving parents as a suicide, her dad, Dr. John Johnson said to himself and the Army coroner, “Somebody murdered my daughter and you picked the wrong person to fuck with.” Fucking right.
Megan Carpentier draws on the recent Salon post by Kate Harding (yay!), Tracey Barnett’s article in the New Zealand Herald, and the June 3rd story at St. Louis-based KMOV-TV.
Not reprised from the LaVena site: Regular readers of Waveflux (there are a few) will recall that I am very fond of Nick Denton’s fine Gawker Media products. That the LaVena story was spotlighted by Jezebel warms my heart of hearts. When I called LaVena’s father today to tell him about the post, I read him the excepted paragraph, right down to the “fucking right.” Wherever you are, Megan Carpentier, thank you.
(Cross-posted.)
What one long-held wish finally came true, only to disappoint?
I can't think of a good answer for this one; I never went on a dream vacation to have it rain the whole time (actually, I'd probably like that anyway), or wished for a pet with whom I didn't get along, or met a hero who was a jerk, or saved money for a long time for something only to be let down once I bought it. My disappointments tend more to come from making rash decisions, rather than from things I've thought about for a long while.
Quixote's earlier post reminded me of this bit, for no good reason aside from the word "evolution" really, lol. Not like I need an excuse to post Eddie.
Hey, loyal readers! Kenny Blogginz here again with another one of my fabulous interviews with colorful characters!
This weekend, I had the pleasure of talking to Stephen Winters, the World's Tallest Christian! I first met Stephen through the Christian Street Ballaz Youth Basketball Myspace Outreach Program Sponsored by Verizon V-Cast. During a Verizon V-Cast Txt Msg session, Mr. Winters let me know that he would be making an appearance at the Youth Ministry Cavalcade just off the highway, next to the gravel heap and the industrial park, and that he would be tickled pink to sit down and talk with me about his status as the tallest abstinent man in the world.
Part Seventeen in an ongoing series…
Quite honestly, this is less about being Photoshopped into impossible beauty than it is about being Photoshopped into looking impossibly like a plucked emu posing with a purse:
Yesterday on "Face the Nation," General Wesley Clark said (in part) that, while he honored John McCain's military service, it doesn't qualify him to be president:
Bob Schieffer: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried? General?Nor do I. Of course, I don't think John McCain has ever explicitly claimed it as a qualification to be president in the first place. What he's done is use the very compelling story of his "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" to mask the realities of his positions on the war, on torture, on funding wounded veterans, and lots of other stuff. And there's a way to make that point that doesn't invoke a strawman.
General Wesley Clark: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'
[crosstalk]
Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-
Clark: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
"No one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides," Obama said. "We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform."—and gave McCain an opportunity to accuse Democrats of denigrating his service.
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Echidne: You Know What's Funny to Bill Kristol? Misogyny
Quetzalli: Keeping Gendered Jobs
Bob Somerby: What makes us say such things?
Jessica: Wall-e (Or Why Right Now I Do Not In Fact Love the Whole World and Even Pixar, Too)
Steve: Note to the Religious Right: Auto-Replace Is Not Your Friend
Pam: Lou Sheldon: Pot Calling the Kettle...
Leave your links in comments...
So John McCain doesn't know the price of a gallon of gas or can't remember the last time he pumped his own gas.
Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.The only reason it matters is because if the same question was asked of Barack Obama and he came back with that line, the Republicans would jump all over him for being an "elitist." But the Republican candidate can get away with not knowing or caring about how much a gallon of gas costs because they're not supposed to care about things like that. They're worried about much bigger things, things the ordinary citizen can't possibly understand, like the inner workings of the War on Terror and stuff like that. Besides, if they did know or care, then they'd be expected to actually do something about it. But as long as it doesn't matter, they don't have to do anything, and they have the escape clause built right in: "What does it matter how much a gallon of gas costs when al-Qaeda is trying to kill you?"
Deborah is hosting the Down Under Feminists Carnival next week, and she got an "interesting" submission to the carnival, which she sent to me:
On the television in his living room, [Jim Peterman, 74] has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor's house, at his son's auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate's background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.What to even say to that? That's so far outside my experience, I can hardly wrap my head around people who make voting decisions that way. But Mr. Peterson is probably a lot closer to the typical voter than I am.
"It's like you're hearing about two different men with nothing in common," Peterman said. "It makes it impossible to figure out what's true, or what you can believe."
…Does he trust a local newspaper article that details Obama's Christian faith? Or his friend Leroy Pollard, a devoted family man so convinced Obama is a radical Muslim that he threatened to stop talking to his daughter when he heard she might vote for him?
"I'll admit that I probably don't follow all of the election news like maybe I should," Peterman said. "I haven't read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it's hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?"
A whole bunch of people have sent me this story in the New York Times about Pete Seeger and his "teaspoon brigade." Fabulous!
Shaker Panopticon sends this story about Arizona voters being given another shot at a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Arizona is the only state in which such a measure has failed. It's also McCain's home state, however, which means that Arizona Republicans will presumably be motivated to get to the polls this November more than they were during the mid-term election during which it was defeated. Donate to Equality Arizona here.
Shaker Susan sends this sad story about a puppy mill in Tennessee. It's another reminder to not buy animals online and to make sure you thoroughly investigate the conditions from which any animal is bred, so as not to perpetuate this kind of cruelty.
In good news, Shaker Graham forwards this amazing story about a woman who has rescued 100 dogs in the aftermath of the May 12 earthquake in China, taking them to the shelter she started a few years ago, which now houses 1,000 dogs and cats.
Shaker Car sends this video with the note: "Republicans in Washington are taking advantage of a law change to call themselves anything BUT Republican on the ballot for this fall. Seems like the state of Washington doesn't like them any more. I find this terribly amusing, if sad, that they're trying to fleece voters this way." Indeed.
Joe Raciti sends the link to his new video, "All Hail the Great Blue Whale," a song created "using only instruments made out of cardboard and the human voice." I like the cardboard didgeridoo.
And Shaker InfamousQBert recommends this video about LGBTQ history that's oh-so-Schoolhouse Rock:
by Shaker Astraea
For all their "but Roe!!!!" bullying, fauxgressives don't really get it when it comes to the importance of reproductive rights. They just don't understand what a crucial issue it is to women of various political backgrounds, women who have profound disagreements in other areas. If they did understand, they wouldn't haul out the big ol' Roe stick to bully us with when they want us to fall in line while then being perfectly willing to forget about it the rest of the time. This especially applies to Democratic politicians who want the support of liberal women, but aren't willing to make a strong stand for choice while running for office.
I don't know how many times I heard in the past six months that Obama needed to tiptoe around abortion so he wouldn't scare away the Independents. (Of course, I was also told to trust that he would defend reproductive rights once he was in office, so I guess it's okay to lie to get the Independents).
NARAL sponsored a poll that challenges these assumptions. In fact, NARAL has shown that Obama can gain not just Independent women, but Republican women as well by being strong on choice and making his position clear (not to mention us pesky Clinton supporters who aren't ready to back Obama). By being a champion for choice and attacking McCain's pro-life record, Obama could differentiate himself from a candidate portrayed by the media as a moderate and falsely attacked by pro-life groups as less than ideal. By standing up for choice, Obama would strengthen the Democratic party by winning the support of pro-choice women.
NARAL lays all this out very clearly. Promoting a pro-choice message:Moves the swing vote by drawing Independent women toward Obama.
Of course, I don't give a shit about Obama or the Democratic party. Anyone who's familiar with my comments on Shakesville probably realizes that. I care about women. And it will help women immensely to have a Democratic presidential candidate who stands up for choice, not just in response to specific questions or on one page of his website or wedged into speeches. In national ads, given prominence. Being pro-choice is not something to hide. And it will help women if the Democratic party would wake up to the importance of protecting not just Roe v. Wade, but actual access to reproductive choices.
Generates crossover support by moving pro-choice Republican women toward Obama.
Consolidates the base by bringing home Democratic women.
NARAL's poll focused on Republican and Independent women in important battleground states and found that when the difference between Obama and McCain's positions on choice are stated clearly, Obama gains 13 points among pro-choice Independent women and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women. Overall, the impact on the general election is significant:Once balanced information about Obama and McCain's respective positions on choice is introduced, Obama gains 6 points, with his overall lead in these twelve states expanding from a net two points (47-45 perconet) to a net 13 points (53-40 percent).
That is huge. Also huge:Among pro-choice Independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care.
Get that, Democrats? Pro-choice positions aren't just window dressing for pro-choice women of any political persuasion.
In the survey, the women were polled as to their support for Obama vs McCain. Then they were read this statement: "Now let me read you some statements about the candidates running for president: Barack Obama believes that the decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for women and families and that these decisions are personal, between a woman, her family, her God, and her doctor, and that politicians should stay out of it. As president, Obama will oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain is pro life and on the issue of abortion, he opposes a woman's right to choose. McCain says that, quote, 'abortion is a human tragedy,' and believes that we must end abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. As president, he will nominate Supreme Court judges who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states." (If you are a fan of fancy schmancy power point presentations, like me, NARAL has a good one here that lists all the questions and shows how support for the candidates changed after women were told the two candidates' positions.)
This comment on a US News and World Reports story inadvertently makes a point for pro-choicers (emphasis mine):Under the guise of conducting a poll, they caught the attention of concerned citizens and fed them a glamorized portrait of Obama. meanwhile, they contrasted with a hard facts-only description of McCain, peppered with pro-choice wording ("opposes a woman's right to choose.")
"Tanya" is right in a very limited sense. Pro-choice wording worked. It brought pro-choice women who would otherwise have voted for McCain over to Obama's side. Enough to make a very significant difference in the general election. How many times have we been told that we have to use their language? That we have to show respect by refraining from attacking republicans as anti-choice? NARAL's poll shows that to be as much bullshit as pro-choice advocates always knew it was.
The democratic party needs to decide, once and for all, that it is the party of choice, dammit, and be proud of their support for women's equality. Decide they don't want to woo pro-lifers at the expense of damaging the fight for reproductive justice. Because the democrats can win enough pro-choice Independent and Republican women to make a difference.
(Cross-posted.)
