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.

Submitted without comment

President George W. Bush, in response to a question of how to protect Christians in Iraq:

Well, one thing we can do is to keep our troops there long enough to have a civil society emerge, and go after them, and go after these killers, and bring them to justice so they quit killing people, including our own troops, because this is a war.

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.

Predictions

Yes:

... an alleged lack of patriotism will be the main line of argument against Barack Obama.

And the thing about this argument is that's not the end of it.

There's been a lot of talk recently in the feminist blogosphere of dogwhistles. And I would argue that this line of attack is exactly one. The "unpatriotic" whine is usually wrapped up in arguments about Obama being a secret Muslim, a black nationalist, Communist, etc. By extracting out the most innocuous (of the set, not on an absolute scale) and repeating it, the upper punditry and co. can signify to the bottomfeeders that they're on their side, without explicitly saying so, and while maintaining plausible deniability against accusations of racism.

Two cents.

Hey, that feels pretty damn familiar.

What is it? Oh, it's just the foot of Schwarzenegger & co. on our backs.

Dammit, this will never cease to make me angry. For the most part, the disabled already live in poverty, and they have no way of changing that. You usually can't magically become un-disabled. And disability is, by definition, the inability to just "work harder" to make ends meet. It's the inability to work enough to live.

And here we go cutting their benefits left and right (including, apparently, again, COLA for the blind and disabled). With an inflation rate of 4.3%. So that we can ease the burden on those poor yacht consumers.

Deep breaths.

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 offhand note

The lefty blogosphere is having fun taking shots at Jonah Goldberg's latest LA Times editorial:

So, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don't value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed-down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the opinions of people who don't know the first thing about how our system works aren't the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don't know how to drive shouldn't have a driver's license.

Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people about the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?

Perhaps our society would be healthier if we required voters to be more informed? Perhaps there would be less bickering, less divisive sniping, less polarization, less partisan fighting?

What was that again? Oh yeah. High information voters are more partisan, not less:

Voters aren't stupid. They're just much more committed to political parties and candidates than they are to issues. And we're not talking about the faceless rubes in the hinterlands. The effects of partisan bias actually become stronger as a voter's level of political information rises...

So much for that.

Compassionate!

Wait, what?

BARKING MAD....The Nation provides a pithy explanation of why Ron Paul is a lunatic who shouldn't be allowed within a thousand yards of the White House:

Look at those policy positions! Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO;....fence the borders; deport illegals; stop lecturing foreign governments about human rights; let the Middle East go hang. What's not to like? [emphasis mine—aw]

Wait. Did I say The Nation? Sorry. Actually, that was John Derbyshire writing in National Review about why Ron Paul would be absolutely brilliant as president of the United States.

I thought we were supposed to be in Iraq because we cared about the plight of those poor Iraqis under Sadaam Hussein and hey, how can you call yourself a feminist if y' won't go to war f'r them oppressed wimminz o'er there?

Oh. Right.