TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison.
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, #92
Shakers Juliemania and Claire just sent me links to this charming tale:
In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for "Barack Osama."Sure. Easy mistake to make.
…The elections office faxed a statement in which the two commissioners, Democrat Edward McDonough and Republican Larry Bugbee, said they regret the error but never acknowledge what the error was.
"It's human error, it's very unfortunate, it's an embarrassment to our office, obviously," McDonough said in a later phone interview. "We wish we could turn back the clock, but we can't."
Sheesh.
[Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty-Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One.]
Actually, It Could Only Be 2/3rds of a Slap in the Face
Andrea Tantaros is fired up -- FIRED UP! I tell you! -- because Newsweek has slapped Sarah Palin in the face . . . . . (well, actually, only 66% of her face) . . . .
. . . . . . . by showing her as she actually looks. The horror.
"Any woman who sees this cover would be shocked and horrified."[You can see an image of the cover here.—MM.]
Tantaros also states the following on her blog (not linking! not linking! not linking! I refuse!):
"Palin's got an election to win, a jam packed campaign schedule, a state to run, and five children. She's not perfect. She's real. That's why "folks" love her. She deserves the same treatment as other candidates: a fair shake and a flattering cover shot." (emp. mine)I see. A flattering cover shot. Not a real cover shot. (Note: Newsweek has a policy about retouching, and claims that it does not retouch cover-shots without making it clear that they have done so.)
I bring this up not because I give a rat's ass about Palin's "unwanted facial hair", or Tantaros' blood-pressure, but because I think that it illustrates perfectly the amazing, complex, fucked-up maze that women navigate every day in this culture.
Sarah Palin is selling herself as "real" -- but if she looks too real, this is an insult to her, according to Tantaros. However, Tantaros' approach is basically: "Your real face? Ewwwwww. Gross!" (and I find myself wondering: How is that not insulting?)
Sarah Palin is selling herself as "experienced" -- but she's supposed to look like a fresh-faced 20-year-old. No wrinkles, no pores, no "unwanted facial hair" (honestly, every time I hear that phrase, I want to open an orphanage for unwanted facial hair).
What's also interesting to me is the choice of the shot. It's an very unusual framing (go ahead, do a Google image search to see just how unusual it is for Newsweek to use up 90% of the real-estate on their cover with just 2/3rds of someone's face).
Jeff Bercovici (again, not linking), in an article charmingly titled "Did Newsweek Have to Show Palin's 'stache" said:
"To me, the implicit message of the photo . . . . . . seems obvious: Here's your beauty queen, your MILF, your 'hottest governor from the coldest state.' How do you like her now that you've seen her crows' feet, her clumpy mascara, her bloodshot eyes, her faint mustache, her cakey makeup, her gaping pores, etc? (Rachel Sklar says the cover is "fair and flattering"; I disagree. It's horrifying.)To his credit, he does later wonder if it's sexist of him to be wondering about this in the first place. (Gee, ya think?)
The framing of the shot is weird, though -- what are they trying to convey? That if I'm not careful, I will be sucked into the wink-vortex of Sarah Palin's left eye?
Nothing that I'm about to say takes an iota away from the fact that I think Sarah Palin is epically inequipped to be Vice President, that I think her policies and practices are abhorrent, and that I experience her personal presentation as smarmy and disgusting.
But . . . . . and . . . . .
She's going to take shit if her close-up portrays her as less than the perfected patriarchal ideal of feminity, and she's going to take shit if her close-up is retouched. She's going to take shit if she's not staying home with the kids, and she's going to take shit because she's paying too much attention to her kids and not enough to her work. She's going to be objectified as a sperm repository, probably by men who say they despise her but who would "hit that" anyway.
And it won't be because she's Sarah Palin. It will be because she's a woman.
[H/T to Shaker and Hoyden Lauredhel.]
Winning and Losing
According to the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, Obama's at 51% and McCain's at 41%. As always, take every poll with a huge grain of salt. Still, a double-digit lead is a pretty significant result.
Something I've been thinking about today: If Obama loses this thing, he'll go down having fought one hell of a race—a first-term senator and historic candidate who campaigned mostly with honor and decency, inspired a new generation to get involved in politics, and has a sterling career ahead of him. If Obama loses, it will be with dignity; he can have enormous pride in how close he came to winning.
If McCain loses this thing, he'll go down in flames—a party elder whose election it was to lose from Day One, who sold his soul to the devil, left his reputation in absolute tatters, and soiled his legacy by making a colossal mockery of everything he claims to believe in. If McCain loses, it will be with ignominy; he will suffer the abject humiliation of ending his career in a spectacular personal and professional flame-out of mythic proportions.
Heh.
Shaker Gourmet: Apple Crisp
Our friend Quentin was in town visiting for the past several days and his very favorite food is apple crisp, so I made some last night for his last evening here. I've made it several times in the past but I think I finally came up with what is now the recipe I'll be using for now on.
There are all sorts of variations on apple crisp! Feel free to share yours in comments!Apple Crisp
2 cups apple cinnamon granola*
half cup vanilla almond granola*
1 cup packed brown sugar
3/4 cups butter, melted
1/4 cup flour
1/4 tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp baking soda
4 - 5 large apples, mix sweet & tart**, peeled/cored/sliced thin
1 tablespoon cinnamon
1/2 tsp nutmeg
1 tablespoon white sugar
allspice (dash)
--Preheat oven to 350 degrees
--Butter 8x8 baking dish or 9-inch pie plate
--Layer one sort of apple, then another on top. Sprinkle with white sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg, and allspice. Put two (or three, depending on how many apples) more layers of apples, alternating kinds.
--In big bowl, mix granolas, flour, brown sugar, baking powder, and baking soda together. Mix in melted butter.
--Carefully put granola mix on top of apples. Bake for about 45 - 50 minutes. Cool for 15 before serving.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me (include a blog link!) at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
* bought at New Seasons, FWIW
** I use Jonagold and Granny Smith apples
Friday Cat Blogging
(She was actually yawning.)
* * *
Olivia: Queen of the Box
(For now.)
* * *
Sophie: Queen of Balancing on Narrow Things
(That's my sweater hanging on the back of a chair, which is as wide as the bit
between her paws. She loves to perch on top on chairs; the monitor is nuttin'!)
By the Way…
In case you were wondering whether Obama was ready with a good response if the coward McCain actually does have the intestinal fortitude to impugn his patriotism to his face, check out this clip from a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio, this morning (via my pal Steve, the last line of whose post made me LOL):
It's easy to rile up a crowd— Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious. The challenges are too great. The American people aren't looking for someone who can divide this country—they're looking for somebody who will lead this country.He's ready for whatever McCain brings.
Now, more than ever, it is time to put country ahead of politics. Now, more than ever, it is time to bring change to Washington so that it works for the people of this country that we love. I know my opponent is worried about his campaign, but that's not what I'm worried about. I'm thinking about the Americans who are losing jobs and homes and their life savings.
We cannot afford another four years of the failed economic theories that say we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires, and hope that prosperity trickles down on everybody else. We can't afford four more years of less regulation, where no one in Washington is watching what's happening on Wall Street. We've seen where that leads us, and we are not going back.
Oh, This Is Getting Good
[Screen caps and transcript for those who can't view the video, below.]
That's just a thing of beauty. You can practically hear Sinatra crooning "I've Got You Under My Skin" in the background.
Don't you know you fool, you never can win / Use your mentality, wake up to reality…
Is it cozy there in that corner into which you've painted yourself, McCain?
I positively can't wait to see McCain prove his "passion" and "courage" by tacitly calling Obama a terrorist on national television. Yes, show us your passion and courage—and your abysmal lack of integrity and honor, to boot. Thrill your bloodthirsty base, and show every undecided voter in the nation what an ignoble scoundrel you really are. And always have been.
John McCain: I have every right to insist that [Obama] be candid and truthful with the American people, uh, and he needs to be asked about [his relationship to Bill Ayers] and he needs to be forthcoming.
Charlie Gibson: You didn't raise that, this argument, or line of argument, in the debate the other night, and I asked Senator Obama about that yesterday; he said, "Yeah, I'm surprised that John didn't say that to my face."
McCain: [laughs tersely] Oh, I'll be glad to—[more terse laughter]—that's a— Again, uh—two things I've never been accused of lacking in: One is passion and the other is courage. I mean, I can—I can accept a lot of the other, uh, criticisms—it didn't come up in the flow of the conversation.
Quote of the Day
"Someday hopefully it won't be necessary to allocate a special evening to celebrate where we are and how far we've come. Someday women writers, producers, and crew members will be so commonplace, and roles and salaries for actresses will outstrip those for men, and pigs will fly."—Actress and professional juggernaut of awesome Sigourney Weaver, at Elle magazine's 15th annual Women in Hollywood tribute.
Friday Blogaround
lol your blogaround
Recommended Reading:
Tracey: From 65 to 0 in Seconds
Lauredhel: Passive Voice Watch: Invisible Rapist in Sussex
Shayera: This is Horrible
Jess: First Public Statue of a Black Woman in England
Renee: Gibbs Puts Hannity in His Place and Maddow and Olbermann Break It Down
Mannion: This Bad Dad Needs to Kick Back with a Few Duff Beers
Leave your links in comments...
Connecticut Rules
From the New York Times:
Breaking News 11:39 AM ET: Connecticut State Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same-Sex MarriageAs Drudge says, "Developing...."
I'll follow up as the news becomes available.
UPDATE: Here's the story from the Greenwich Times:
HARTFORD - A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in Connecticut.And the actual ruling (PDF). (HT to Shaker KarateMonkey in comments.)
The court ruled 4-3 Friday that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Justices overturned a lower court ruling and ordered that court to find in favor of the plaintiffs.
Eight same-sex couples sued in 2004, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.
"We are ecstatic," said Jeffrey Busch of Wilton, who along with his partner, Stephen Davis sued for marriage rights. Busch and Davis have a civil union for the benefit of their 3-year-old son, Elijah Davis Busch.
Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
This is great news. That makes three: Massachusetts, California, and now Connecticut.
Stand by for the usual howls from the Orcosphere about "activist judges" -- who were just doing their job -- and you can bet that this will be injected into the presidential campaign if it hasn't been already as I type this. And I have a feeling this ruling will be used on both sides of the campaign here in Florida on Amendment 2.
But the march to equality for all citizens goes on, and all the consternation and monkeyhouse from the homophobes only proves that we are on the way.
Mommy v. Daddy
Via Media Matters, I find this gendered analysis of Tuesday's debate in the LA Times:
The late conservative economist Jude Wanniski once dubbed Republicans the "Daddy Party" and Democrats the "Mommy Party." On Tuesday, Obama seemed to prove his point by laying out the more expansive government role in caring for middle-class Americans. And he mentioned not only his mother, but his wife and grandmother too.First, let's talk about how this is insulting to men, via its implicit contention that men don't care for other people, and, quite specifically, if one takes this tired metaphor to its logical conclusion, that fathers don't care for their children. Men are there to provide and discipline; women are there to care. This lie is the foundation for every damnable binary about sex and emotion in our culture—men are rational; woman are emotional—and it is on what we've based our pernicious refusal to regard the most destructive versions of emotions like anger, jealousy, possessiveness, vengeance, apathy, and selfishness as not emotions at all, but merely biological evidence of strength, as long as they emanate from men.
Every man and woman reading this post who was raised in a house with a father who did not see "caregiver" as part of his role, who couldn't have a bad day without the whole house having a bad day, who called his sons and daughters emotional or hysterical or weak if they cried, without a trace of irony as he stomped around the house in a fit of pique that no one could ignore, unable to properly process his emotions because he's not supposed to have any, knows intimately the damage done by narratives that tell men they aren't meant to care and that only girls and pussies show emotion.
The "daddies aren't there for caring; that's what mommies are for" meme can't die soon enough or hard enough. It hurts the men who believe in it, it hurts the boys and girls they raise, it ain't a picnic for Mom (or second Dad, or Grandma, or whomever else may be a secondary care provider). It's bad for families, and every member in them, and it's bad for the country when writ large. Men are designed to care, too—and they should, for themselves as much as anyone else.
And now let's talk about how that snip of gendered analysis is insulting to women.
See: All of the above. Every time one sex has assigned to it a particular trait or behavior or emotion, then the other is assigned its opposite, or merely its absence—and a failure to demonstrate its opposite or absence, as prescribed by one's own gender, thus results in a deviation of which our gender-obsessed, binary-obsessed, gender role-enforcing patriarchy will not approve.
Any woman, then, who doesn't want children for whom to care, who doesn't want to fill the mommy role at all, or who becomes a mother but refuses to sacrifice her every need and desire at the altar of self-subjugation, who has the temerity to care about herself, publicly and unapologetically, is, by definition, not a "real" woman.
Unless she's a prominent conservative; for them, we make exceptions.
What I find most troubling for women about Doyle McManus' analysis, however, is this: "And he mentioned not only his mother, but his wife and grandmother too." Merely by speaking about women, Obama "proved" Wanniski's Mommy Party / Daddy Party thesis. It's bad enough, you see, to care about people (like a woman does), but to care about women—well, that just proves you practically are one. And so is your whole party.
Naturally, it goes without saying that, in this calculation, being womanlike is a bad thing.
The implicit recommendation is to stop speaking about women, or caring about them, or behaving like they're supposed to behave according to the stereotype underlying this whole argument, i.e. Mommy. It's only by not caring about, acknowledging, or respecting women at all that Barack Obama and the Democrats can shed the disastrous image of the Mommy Party. (And of course a woman cannot participate as a candidate—not a "real" woman, anyway, who wouldn't selfishly let a career stand in her way of caring about her partner and children.)
Leaving women not cared about, acknowledged, respected, or effectively participating is, one supposes, a small price to pay for a gentleman's victory.
I take a slightly different view. Ahem.
My view, which I daresay will come as a surprise to approximately no one, is that men who have empathy and compassion for other people are always a welcome contribution to American politics, and women who have empathy and compassion for other people are needed in much greater numbers in American politics. (I am decidedly dissatisfied with a Congress that is 16% female—positively shameful, that.) My view is that we should collectively take vocal and uncompromising issue with people who actively discourage women's participation in politics, whether through propagating stupid memes about Mommy and Daddy Parties or by treating them like garbage. My view is that Obama should talk about his mother, his grandmother, his wife, his daughters, his sister, his female friends and colleagues, and women generally at every opportunity he is given, and give women a chance to tell him their own stories along the campaign trail. And my view is that he should be proud to do so, and aware of why it's necessary.
That's my view. My question is: What would a late conservative economist say, do you think, about a Daddy Party with a mommy on its ticket?
I suppose it's okay—as long as she's hostile to women, too. That seems to be the important thing.
And isn't it always.
Nowhere Man
President Bush will be in Miami today for a fundraiser for local Republicans.
Except that the three local Republican members of the House of Representatives, Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, all have "previous commitments" and won't be able to make it.
Question of the Day
The Hobbit is in production, but Bilbo has not yet been cast (though James McAvoy has been rumored). Who would you cast in the role?
Scratching my angry black scalp...
Crossposted from AngryBlackBitch.com.
The fantabulous Liss sent this bitch an article by Patricia J. Williams titled The Politics of Michelle Obama’s Hair. The piece is an exploration of Michelle Obama’s presence…her personality, appearance and oh yes, her hair. Williams clearly is inspired by the complete Michelle Obama package, but there’s something about the way she explores the hair thang that gave me pause.
Shall we?
Full disclosure – a bitch rocks a natural Afro and has for several years.
Black women and our hair…where to start? I was raised to believe that wearing natural hairstyles (meaning not straightening my hair) wasn’t the route to regular employment, acceptance or happiness. More importantly, I was taught that black women were charged with the task of putting others at ease through both our appearance and our temperament…and that was the clear route to regular employment, acceptance and happiness. So when I chopped off my chemically straightened hair and began to grow my Afro I was honestly concerned that it would have negative ramifications. Williams describes it as “political hair” but she seems to be searching for empowerment within an acceptably black definition by contrasting the appeal of Michelle Obama to the way Cynthia McKinney was treated by Capitol security allegedly after she began to wear a natural.
The thing is that has more to do with the very society Williams acknowledges is neither post-racial nor post-feminist.
When Williams tells of how sad she felt when wearing a Condi Rice Halloween mask versus how up beat she felt when wearing a Michelle Obama mask…well, she lost me.
If I’ve learned anything it is that true empowerment comes from being comfortable and loving the hell out of your own ass.
The thing that I like about Michelle Obama is that she exudes that empowerment. She’s cool with herself – no mask required (wink).
But Ms. McKinney is also cool with her self…and just because some members of the Capitol police aren’t cool with that shit doesn’t mean she is any less empowering as a result. Let’s be clear…members of the press politicized her hair – her hair was just being hair.
Sigh.
Is Michelle Obama fantabulous?
Yes!
Would I feel fantabulous rocking her look…her ways…her life?
No.
***logs off to fluff Afro then read Ain’t I A Woman one more time***
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, Part 91
It's kind of ironic that the NRA has endorsed McCain, considering the arrest of the following gun-toting loudmouth whackjob:
Wade Williams, 75, was arrested this morning on a felony terrorizing charge after allegedly calling the Registrar of Voters and warning that he would come to the state office and empty his shotgun unless he got his registration card. Using profanity and racial slurs, Williams told a state official "about needing to vote to 'keep the nigger out of office," according to an Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office affidavitMr. Wade Asshat Williams is a confirmed terrorist. Don't believe me? Well, if you look at the arresting officer's affidavit, you'll see the charge listed as "terrorizing." That's what terrorists do. But when "we" do it here at home, that's not terrorism! Wheee!
Well, at least that's one less McCain vote to worry about.
[H/T to RawStory. Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty-Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight to Ninety.]
McCain Promises to Take It to Obama
And we all know he's a man of his word (ha ha ha ha ha!!!) so I'm sure he'll totally follow through on it:
The next question came from a black McCain supporter, who reminded McCain of the candidate's plea at the convention for his supporters to do everything possible to ensure a victory. … He then implored McCain to go after Barack Obama at the next debate and asked him to raise ACORN and Reverend Wright. "I am begging you, sir," he said, as the crowd stood and applauded.So McCain says he'll go after Obama at the next debate on the "radical terrorist extremist zomg" meme his surrogates have been pushing for days. Noted.
"Yes, I'll do that," McCain responded.
We already know Obama told him to bring it—now Biden is throwing down the gauntlet, too.
"All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube … John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him," Biden said this morning. "In my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him."McCain's going to look like a megadouche if he doesn't look Obama in the eye and call him a terrorist to his face at the next debate.
The best part? McCain's going to look like a megadouche if he does look Obama in the eye and call him a terrorist to his face at the next debate.
Pass the popcorn.
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, #25
In case the Sarah Palin porno just isn't enough to satisfy your sexual fantasies about the Republican veep nominee, now there is a Sarah Palin sex doll. Oh—pardon me, a "This Is Not Sarah Palin Inflatable Love Doll." (I'm not going to provide a link to the site; I'm sure Google will help you if you really need to find it.)
It's "Not Sarah Palin," even though the first bulletpoint in the product description is "Sarah Palin makes sexism sexy"—and even though a closer inspection of the packaging (probably NSFW; judge by the thumbnail, above) reveals that the head of a woman chosen specifically for her resemblance to Sarah Palin was clearly Photoshopped onto another woman's body. But remember: It's a "This Is Not Sarah Palin" sex doll.
The next time you hear some dude arguing it's not sexism that keeps women out of politics, or waxing perplexed about why there aren't more women in politics, or maybe suggesting that women choose to avoid a public life because they're not biologically or temperamentally disposed toward it, direct him to this post.
And ask him how many bright, young, politically-engaged women he thinks have read about the Palin porno or the Palin sex doll, or read the other twenty-four entries in the Palin Sexism Watch, or the fourteen entries in the Michelle Obama Sexism Watch, or the zomg 111 entries in the Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch, or any of the other thousands of bits of misogynist swill about which we've not written at Shakesville, just this election season, and how many of them have thought, "Well, maybe politics isn't the place for me after all," because we require of our female politicians a skin so thick they're not meant to care when it's reproduced in vinyl for the singular purpose of being cum on by men who quite possibly can't even locate the US on a map.
[H/T to Shaker Jade. Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
Quote of the Day
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face. But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that—that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate."—Barack Obama, responding to Charlie Gibson's inquiry about the McCain campaign's assertion that Obama is an unknown quantity and implication that he is a terrorist.
Shorter Obama: Bring it on, you spineless weasel.
