She Writes Letters

Dear (check all that apply): Upper/Middle Class, Political Geeks, Journalists, Liberals, Blogosphere:

There are less than three weeks left until the convention primary voting ends.*

Why the desparate push for Clinton to drop out? Is it going to make a difference in the next twenty days? What will her abdication accomplish?

You cry about the irreparable damage to the party. What damage is being done? I see record voter turnout -- in many cases higher turnout in the Democratic primary than the 2004 Presidential race -- record numbers in fundraising for both candidates; incredible enthusiasm on the part of supporters for both candidates; an actual sense of purpose and direction in the party as a whole, and an actual backbone!

We are accomplishing so many things. Our Democratic leaders are actually pushing forth an agenda that means something to the people of the country. And even with the albatross that is the Republican party, we are seeing actual progress and accomplishment. Over the last four and a half months, we have been arguing over matters of policy both foreign and domestic, learning from each other, and finding a voice together, boldly speaking out against the policy of the last seven years that has lead us to where we are today. And the people are hearing us!

Both candidates have run historic campaigns, the closest to the White House any woman or any person of color has ever come. People are turning out in droves to support the both of them, and the level of excitement inspires, well, hope. We are doing good things! And even the quibbles between the two only lead us forward, helping us to stake out a firm position, to strengthen the one who will lead the country to a better place.

Where is the damage to the party? Are we not accomplishing incredible things? Are not the people happier with both the two remaining Democratic candidates than they have been in decades?

In three weeks, when we decide on one leader, will we be damaged?

In just less than six months, when the people of America vote for their President -- may the best person win -- will we be damaged?

Does anyone honestly believe that one month from now, two, three, four, five, or even that sixth, that our case will be so damaged as to be irreparable, and that it will be Clinton's fault?

If our strong, true, and persuasive case for smarter public policy is rejected by the people, who will have been the one to damage it? Will it have been the left, or will it have been the right?

We have six months now to work together. Even now, in the midst of this damaging primary, both candidates are helping define their opposition -- John McCain -- as "more of the same." Even now, independent groups are leveling attacks on the presumptive Republican nominee.

And six months, in the past, has been derided as a campaign that takes too long!

We have plenty of time, my friends. Won't you let us all voice our preferences at the booth, and then join us at the convention, where we will decide together on which excellent candidate will lead us both to victory?

I will be there. I hope you will join me.

Yours,

Amanda

* Thanks hn in comments for correction.

Noted.

Conventional wisdom, May 2007: The prominence of Iowa and New Hampshire in the national presidential primaries is inequitable and unproductive. It weights the voting opinions of a very unrepresentative class of Americans over every other. We should allow each state in the union its fair say in the primary.

Conventional wisdom, May 2008: Clinton needs to step aside. The race is already won, and having her remain will only cause more trouble. In the past the nomination has been wrapped up much earlier than this, so it's OK to insist upon it.* We shouldn't have to wait for each state to have its say -- that's too long!

Principles. Eh. Too inconvenient.

*I would do that nifty thing where you link to a bunch of posts in the words of the sentence, but honestly, I don't have the time/energy to search out everything I've read over the past several weeks on the matter. Suffice to say the sentence isn't long enough to fit them all.

Ring that old bell

"Worth repeating":

That the Clinton people need to get used to the fact that Obama is the nominee. All the hyperbolic "he can never win the general" and the "it's not fair" stuff needs to stop right now unless you want a 100-years-in-Iraq, pro-life, pro-Roberts/Alito Supreme Court, 22% lifetime LCV rating, economic right-winger as President. To spend any time or energy at all nursing your resentments is the most fundamentally selfish thing you can do right now. I hate losing elections, I know how badly you feel, and how hard it is, but there is too much at stake to be selfish right now.

Now now, ladies, you need to stop worrying about your silly female things. We have a lot to get accomplished and we'll never get there if you sanctimonious women's studies set keep making your fuss about all this lady stuff. We do need to keep Roe in place, now, don't we, dears? It would be awfully selfish of you to cost us this win.

Hmmm. Haught dismissal of expressed concerns, threat held over head about women's basic human rights, accusal of "selfishness" (one of the most invisibly gendered words), "there's too much at stake", patronizing "I know how you feel", promise-one-never-intends-to-keep to get back to their issues when this election is over. (Oh, wait, they didn't even bother with that one.)

This all sounds awfully fucking familiar. Seems we've been hearing this for pretty much every fucking election since the fucking invention of elections. Or at least since the nineteenth amendment.

***

Hm. I suppose I should add here that when I voted, I did not vote for Clinton, that I don't share concerns about Obama's viability in the general (and in fact tend to be a bit skeptical about such arguments), that I think Clinton has done some pretty damn reprehensible things over the course of both her political career and her run for president -- etc. But I don't think that's what we're really talking about here, is it?

God, I am sick of

this primary.

Well, not so much the primary.

I am sick of calls for Clinton to drop out of the race.

I am sick of "tearing apart the party."

I am sick of "cares only about herself/her ambitions."

I am sick of the insecure assertions that Obama already has the nomination tied up, and Clinton has no chance to win, when both candidates are within reasonable reach of the nomination.

I am sick of assertions that the superdelegates have a responsibility to vote based on the popular vote/non-super delegate count (whichever is more favorable to their candidate, of course).

I am sick of how obvious the motivations behind that assertion are. If the superdelegates are obligated to replicate the will of the people, they have no purpose whatsoever. If people truly believe it is undemocratic that the superdels vote any other way, they should be arguing that there should be no superdelegates, not piddling around how they should justify their votes.

I am sick of people complaining about Clinton's call for Michigan and Florida to be counted, saying that she does so only because it is in her self-interest, while then turning around and making the two above arguments, as though they are being Objective and Rational and Above It All.

I am sick of the fucking misogyny that has reared its head in this primary, and how even so-called progressives can't seem to criticize Clinton without framing their argument in sexist slurs and stereotypes.

I am sick of the ugly racism that has made itself known across the country. The obvious white antipathy to being reminded that race exists, no less racism, even if it stays thousands of miles from ever implicating them personally. The Brown Menace, secret Muslim-ism, the deep-seated fear of the Angry Black Man. I am sick and tired of the unconscious but vehement effort put into preserving the system of white supremacy.

I am sick of the reflexive move to knock back down any woman in any position of power. Put her in her place. Remind her. Make it known that she can play the game, but she can never win.

I am sick of people who say that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, they will defect and vote instead for McCain. What kind of fucking moron are you? Is it going to take a few knocks of the skull against a cement brick for you to regain consciousness and realize that yes, there are differences between Clinton and Obama, significant ones even, but that McCain is going to be outright dangerous for the country compared to either of the two? I understand those who choose not to vote for the Democratic candidate if said candidate does not meet their standards; I do not understand those who would then vote for a candidate who spits upon their standards.

I am sick of all of this. Shame on all of you. Fuck this. I'm tired of it. I will vote for either Democratic candidate in November, but I'm damn well not returning to read, watch or listen to some of you who resort to such tactics as you yourself would condemn when used by Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove. Yes, I just compared you to those two fuckwits. You may not perform such grand evil, but you are feeding into their narratives. And you should damn well feel ashamed about it.

I have never voted in a primary contest before. I've only been old enough to vote in one presidential election. I have been excited for over a year now about my opportunity to vote for a candidate I was actually exicted about in an election that will actually matter.

And I got my twenty minutes of cheery happy yay-America-ness. And then I came back to the real world. And my enthusiasm for this party is just about shattered.

Way to gear up the youth of America, folks.

Hah

I gotta say, I respect my new geographical neighbors. The national media was working itself up into a lather about Obama's remarks about working-class Pennsylvanians, and then it turned out that, here in actual non-Philly PA (those same voters about whom Obama was talking), nobody gives a shit. I hope all of these pundits who pride themselves on being "in touch" with the average Joe down here on the ground (who is lucky to count unpaid vacation days among his benefits, much less owning his own vacation home) feel the sweet, sweet sting of pwnage.

And just now, my husband emails me this:

Politics stops at the water's edge -- even if that water's frozen, apparently.

About 57,000 more households in the Pittsburgh region tuned in to watch the Penguins beat up on the Ottawa Senators than tuned in to see two senators (Obama and Clinton) beat up on each other in the Democratic presidential debate, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The hockey game played in 175,000 -- or 23 percent -- of all households in the Pittsburgh metro market, while the blame game played in 118,000 households -- or 14 percent of the market, according to Nielsen.

Pittsburghers know better than to think that debates moderated by TV "journalists" are worth anybody's time. They neither inform nor edify; they aren't entertaining; they have nothing to do with our actual lives. We'd rather you broadcast ol' Sax Guy playing the Addams Family tune on a two-hour looop than watch a couple of blowhards play the same old tired gotcha game with two politicians who'd be better served catching a few hours of much-needed sleep.

We're too smart for you, o MSM. Neener neener.

for what it's worth

I don't like it when people pick on Condoleezza Rice for her facial expressions. The fact that a woman's face at rest isn't pleasant and bright shouldn't be something to use against her. I don't get the sense that she's deliberately scowling; there's room for interpretation there, certainly, but I don't feel that she should have to walk about with a smile plastered on her face at all times to be acceptable to the public at large.

UPDATE

I wanted to post my own clarification. :) The subject was brought to mind by this post over at Shakesville, Melissa's graphic in particular. My post here wasn't so much directed explicitly at her, however. It's an issue I've noticed repeatedly over the years; much of the criticism of Rice's facial expressions are overtly sexist, and it bothers me. Knowing Melissa's rationale, it's obvious she isn't coming from the same place. It is worth reflecting to consider whether one is reinforcing a patriarchal narrative; that reflection will naturally lead to different conclusions in different people, which is of course why we refer to feminisms, plural.

I do have to thank Melissa for reading and responding. I certainly understand her reasoning. I was pointing out something that made me personally uncomfortable, and hoping it might start a conversation that explored the issue a bit more, not trying to draw judgment.

(Also keep in mind this was a quick post I threw up while rushing about getting ready for work last night -- not so much a "very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care." ;))

I *heart* Elizabeth Edwards

Elizabeth Edwards is, by far, my favorite public figure. I see a lot of myself in her, and I see a lot of what I wish I could be in her. There's been no shortage of times I've wished that she would get involved in politics, not only her husband John.

All of which is to introduce this video of her throwing hardball at John McCain's so-called health care plan, pointing out that even John McCain would be refused health care under the plan he proposes:



The phrase "pet peeve" is not strong enough to describe my feelings toward the universal policy of preexisting condition exclusions. I consider them cruel and immoral. If only one thing could be changed about our health care system in America, I'd criminalize this sort of policy. Consider it like loaning money only to people who don't need it: so no mortgages, no car financing, no student loans. Nothing. The only way to qualify for a loan is if you can prove that you have no reason to need the money at all. Doesn't that sound, well, fucked up? That's because it damn well is.

Not surprised that the host of the show tried as hard as she could to get some sort of salacity out of Edwards. "Did you have a fight?" Good God, these people belong back on the schoolyard, if only for the safety of the rest of society. Elizabeth, as always, stays out of it, ever classy.

So apparently

my humble new home may make an actual difference in who wins the Democratic nomination.

I've dreamed for a while now of casting my vote in the primaries, and in fact finally crossed to the dark side—registered Democratic when I moved here—specifically to enable such an action. But I had figured the whole time that my vote wouldn't make much of a difference, anyhow (especially being a tentative Edwards supporter and all).

So, um.... woobama?

This drives me batty

Kevin remarks: "Does anyone seriously think that any Republican candidate can kick such major ass among independents in November that he can afford a conservative base that's not charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't." ... Does anyone seriously think that any Democratic candidate is more likely than Clinton to ensure a conservative base that's charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't.

Remind me, again, why the conservative base experiences a collective break with reality when it comes to Clinton?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that she is a woman in a position of power who does not humbly grovel at the feet of the patriarchy? Who has a drop of independence to her? Who doesn't bake cookies and read to children, but attempts to use her position to get something done? Who speaks her mind -- or speaks at all, since she refuses to be the mouthpiece of the patriarchy? Who knuckles down, who hits back when attacked, who unabashedly uses every resource available when trying to accomplish something? Who has "ambition" (what single public figure could ever not)?

I thought we condemned the bigots for reacting with horror and spittle when confronted with such a woman. I thought we vowed to fight them when they act that way. Not to shrug our shoulders, and say, "Oh well. The bigots will say mean, nasty things, and they will surely ensure our defeat, if we are to nominate her." Therefore, if you value your well being, you .... won't.

Does this argument have that familiar stench to anyone else?

There's been a bit of fuss over whether it is acceptable to consider political differences when deciding who to date (or fuck, or marry).

I am a bleeding heart, far-left liberal, sometimes-radical-leaning feminist (hairy legs and all), Democratic-primary-voting woman who believes politics matter. My husband is a self-described libertarian—yeah, the sort who's too cool to identify with the conservative movement, although he has definite conservative leanings—attended a private conservative Christian college, leans far relativist history geek who doesn't keep up much with politics because he doesn't think they make much of a difference.

We get along just fine, and I admire the hell out of him. Why?

Our value systems match up. Those values may translate into somewhat different beliefs, but I know that in the end his beliefs are coming from a good place. I think he'd be likely to identify as feminist (or feminist supporting, if you prefer) if it weren't for all the negative cultural trappings around the term—based on his beliefs and his actions.

He treats people with respect and courtesy. He has no desire to interfere in the rights of others to live their lives as they wish. He stays far away from conversations about Those People (teh gays, teh Muslims, teh blacks or others). And, again, he regards others with respect, a true, deep respect for who they are and what they need. I can sense the difference between "I'll make nice to your face, but I still have a base disdain for you" prevalent on the right and "You have a right to define yourself on your own terms and fight for basic equality and respect, and I support you in that fight" -- and his is definitely the latter.*

It is entirely possible to live with political differences in intimate relationships.

However, our politics rise out of our value systems, and when you get down to it, you can not live with someone who has a value system that is incompatible with your own.

*(This is not to say he does not benefit from privilege or hold beliefs I believe are wrong -- or that I hold beliefs he believes are wrong. We can have a hearty debate, for sure. But I believe that in the end, in our goals and our basic values, he and I are on the same page.)

An older topic, but an important one

I have to be honest here. I find it both funny and aggravating when folks like Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias complain about their health care woes. They are reminding the world that the U.S. could stand a lot of improvement and the right wing's "hip replacement! wait times, O NOES!" scare tactics are ridiculous, but it boggles the mind how out of touch even the liberal dudes are when it comes to the impossibility of navigating this health care system. They are incredibly privileged that their only worry is waiting a few weeks for their annual physical. They don't go without care that is necessary to their health, or face significant obstacles to obtaining it. And yet it is a surprise to them that their health care is not simply dropped in their laps with no effort on their parts.

Health is a struggle for me. A daily battle. A battle with myself, against my own body, and against the world that makes it all the more difficult for me to win that fight against my own medical demons. I don't get the privilege of seeing a doctor once a year -- I have had years where I did so, but it was because I was uninsured and only had the means to save up for one doctor's visit that year, and I suffered for it the other 364 days and change, let me tell you.

Anyway, all this is to say that I'm going to make a point of including my own struggles on this blog. Not that many people will read it, but maybe some people will, and will get the idea that for the sick, health care is not an ideal, it's not academic, it's not a principle, it's not politics, it's a full time job. It's something we have to face every day if we want to face the day at all.

So with all that, here's my latest tale, stolen from my journal, about my fight with my health care provider to provide me my health care.

Let me note before this, that I have been routinely denied prescriptions since moving here PA and becoming eligible for insurance (finally); this doctor's office has been impossible to deal with, and my insurance just as much so. I've been doctor hopping my entire life, trying to find someone who is knowledgeable and respectful. I've had two doctors in my lifetime who have given that to me -- maybe three, now that I think about it (two of them gynecologists). Trust me, I have seen multitudinous more doctors than that throughout my life. It is tiring. It is aggravating. It is exhausting and painful. It really is the second shift for the sick, fighting the health care system just to get barely adequate care. I just feel like the more people who realize this, maybe the more people who will help fight to make it better.

***

Last Wednesday was the day I trekked out to McMurray for what was to be (I hope, anyway) my last ever visit to this fuckwit doctor's office. The drive itself was aggravating -- McMurray Road, a two-lane road that was quite a pleasant drive all told, is being completely repaved (Peters Township has way too much disposable income), and the workers decided to handle the traffic in the most idiotic way possible (I've seen it handled well, and this was not one of those times): let traffic back up for over a mile one way while letting one side through, then switch off. I was stuck in place, unmoving, for over 15 minutes, less than a mile away from the doctor's office at that point.

I actually called in at that point to let the front desk know I'd be a little late, and the woman was actually nice to me. It's the first time I've ever had someone at that office speak to me pleasantly, ever. Go figure.

Anyway, I got called back, sat down, and lectured on painkiller use for ten minutes by the physician's assistant.

I am, apparently, supposed to be seen before every refill. Every refill. That's every months, folks, conceivably for the rest of my life. I'm only twenty one years old. That's a lot of doctor's visits.

I made (as you'd expect) disapproving noises as she continued to talk right over me.

"We strongly frown on long term narcotic use. They're usually meant for short term..."

"I know that."

"And we don't use it for fibromyalgia. We recommend anti-inflammatories --"

"Anti-inflammatories DO NOT WORK on fibromyalgia. It is a neurological condition, a disorder of the central nervous system that amplifies pain. If you have osteoporosis and fibromyalgia, then anti-inflammatories will work because osteoporosis causes inflammation, but the only thing fibromyalgia will do is amplify that pain."

"..." [sort of stunned, doesn't know what to say]

"..."

"... [sigh] Yeah, so..."

... and she continued lecturing right over me, not listening to a word I had to say.

I was informed multiple times, just in case I wasn't already aware, that a lot of people abuse painkillers and they have to be careful. I would say "I know that" and before I could say anything else she'd keep on lecturing me in that condescending tone of voice.

I told her that two months ago, I was told I would only need to be seen every six months to continue getting my refills. (Indeed, it had been six months since I'd seen the doctor for that purpose at the time.) She said "I don't know who told you that," and that their policy was every refill.

My suspicion is that they flagged me as a potential abuser, and she was just bullshitting me. Obviously that is not their policy or else I would not have been getting my refills relatively unimpeded every month up until now. Perhaps their policy changed, but wouldn't she have said as much instead of just insisting that it is, and always has been, their policy?

So, yes. I am never going back there again. I had already decided as much when this whole fiasco began, and switched PCPs with my insurance the day I found out about all this. I have an appointment two weeks from now.

But when she pulled out the "anti-inflammatories" thing, that just sealed the deal right there. It has been at least ten years since the concept of fibromyalgia as an autoimmune, rheumatic, inflammatory disease fell out of credibility (though lamentably not popularity). TEN years. Central sensitization has been the leading theory for quite some time now. I've been up on this research since early high school. Granted, I know doctors are very busy people and they can't keep up with every single development in the field of medicine, but this is still unforgivable in my mind. I should not know more than my own doctor about my condition -- what's the point in seeing her, then? It would be understandable, perhaps, if it were year-old research. But research that has been widely circulated and accepted for over ten years?

Fuck that.

Comments on TAPPED aren't cooperating with me, so I'll post it here.

Mark Schmitt on Edwards, poverty and race:

And yet, as I point out, he actually talks about poverty in a relatively safe way that treats it purely as an economic issue and he often (though not always) avoids the issues of race, racism and power that are inherently connected to entrenched poverty, especially urban poverty. His major speech on poverty last fall mentioned race only as something that used to be a problem, whereas now income is the problem.

The popular narrative today among many liberals and liberal-leanings seems to be that racism and misogyny are over, done with, relegated to a few extremists with no power to do anything about it, and instead the major social justice problem of our time is class. It's not exclusive to Edwards.

It's frustrating to try to argue with people who subscribe to this narrative, because they'll take any evidence of discrimination or mistreatment and automatically tie it back to class. Yes, the two (three, or more) are inextricably intertwined. No, this does not mean that racism and sexism no longer exist and are simply expressions of classism. It's an overly- simplistic view, and I suspect it comes in part out of a desire to free the movement of the conservative backlash against the increasing power of women and minorities in the country, an attempt to distill the progressive message and make it more palatable to those who suffer some forms of discrimination, but benefit from male or white privilege and are averse to a frank recognition of same.