All I Want For Christmas

... is a healthcare bill. While this is not the bill I hoped to see (I reeeeally wanted that public option), I still smile at the prospect of these changes coming to the U.S. Although his name isn’t brought up in polite conversation, John Edwards deserves much credit for this: during the 2008 primary, he was the first candidate to test the waters of universal healthcare months prior to Clinton and Obama dipping their toes in. This was during a time when Bush vetoed the health insurance plan for poor children, and not many people got all that upset about it.

I admit, I experienced 11th-hour doubt thanks to my political crush, Howard Dean. His WaPo editorial raised compelling points, and he (like myself) wondered if this bill was worthwhile without that public option. Should we wait for a more perfect bill? After more reading and thought, I decided this bill should be passed. Does it do the most good possible? No. But it does a hell of lot more than our current system does. (Here’s back-up from Paul Krugman) Reasons why this bill gets the coveted FemChick seal of approval:

30 million people: The number of currently uninsured Americans who will gain coverage under this act! That will mean 94% of legal citizens under Medicare age will have healthcare coverage in 2014, up from 83% currently. That’s a lot of people about to live healthier lives, about to be less scared about a medical mishap slipping them into bankruptcy.

Higher taxes on wealthy: The difference between this program and Bush-era spending programs? This administration plans to pay for it. Some will come from cost-cutting measures, and some will come from higher taxes on those making over $200k a year. My heart does not break: because of recent tax laws, the gap between the wealthy and poor is wider than it has been in generations. The expansion on the vacation home just might have to wait until the poor can go to a doctor for an annual physical.

Mandatory coverage: Without this, we’d continue the broken system of the insureds paying an invisible tax to cover the uninsureds' unpaid ER bills -- and those uninsured Americans have preventable ER visits due to lack of basic and preventative care. Voluntary coverage doesn't work fairly -- we all must be required to have coverage.To those who bemoan this get-covered-or-get-fined approach, I’d like to ask them whether they comply with mandatory car insurance laws and are happy that other drivers must as well.

And the rest of us can keep our coverage: No more discrimination on pre-existing conditions, no more terminations of coverage upon illness. Although progressives such as Dean are not happy with the amount that coverage costs can increase with age, this bill does cap those increases more than current runaway costs. It seems only fair (and right and good) that the elderly and sick can keep their health insurance.

Each party can point to abuses on either side, even by those seemingly opposing their own party's mission: Democratic Senator Schmucky from Nebaska holding out for special favors, Republicans stalling a Pentagon spending bill in order to delay the healthcare bill. It’s been a messy process and as always, politicians begin to resemble bratty second graders at recess. But I hope 60 senators come together to do the right thing: to pass a bill that will enable millions of Amercians to have affordable health insurance for the first time. During a time of so many Scrooge specials, let’s stick up for the “surplus population.”

And God bless us, everyone.

Where Have All The Bibles Gone?

As always, a lot of personal belief masquerades as religious dictate: the “it’s not me, it’s God” defense of a political argument. Recently though, it’s shocking how the Bibles have gone missing. We are in the midst of political debates regarding core moral issues – healthcare for the poor, higher taxes for the rich, war – and I haven’t heard much scripture. I am no theologian, but I know my New Testament fairly well, especially the Sermon on the Mount. Those pages contain many words (especially in red) regarding poverty, charity, and killing. Where are those Bibles now? Why do the WWJD? signs disappear when the conversation turns to taxes, healthcare, guns. and war? The criteria switches: while it’s “un-Christian” to support reproductive rights or gay marriage, it’s “un-American” to support public healthcare or to oppose war.

I don’t mean to insinuate that one cannot be religious and support war or oppose a public healthcare option. What I mean is that if the Bible is the core argument in one political debate, consistency demands that the Bible returns for the next one. If someone uses a Bible to defend an opposition to gay marriage, they need to use it when the debate moves onto healthcare for the poor or the war in Afghanistan. Otherwise that book is no longer a sacred text guiding a belief system but becomes a mere prop.

My point, of course, is that religion does not belong in government policy for this reason: it’s used as a convenient and nearly unassailable way to bolster personal opinion as divine truth. Now that we see many political conservatives shelving Bibles when their particular causes would not be helped by them, let’s keep religious texts where they belong: in homes and places of worship, guiding lives but not policy.

It’s Not You, It’s Me: Dumping The 24-Hour News Networks

“Taking a break from news” seems to be 2009’s staycation of choice. After a while, watching screaming matches and listening to red herring, alarmist arguments becomes infuriating and depressing. No wonder people walk away. I can't accept that this is a matter of attention to current events, though, but the consumption of irresponsible news. I single out the 24-hour news networks as a main culprit.

Twenty-four hour cable news networks are a bad idea. Watching them is a worse one. The sure-fire way to keep eyeballs on screens is to promote fear and sensationalism; to gain broad viewership, issues become dumbed-down dichotomies of pro versus con that even the laziest viewers will grasp; to beat the competition, stories aren’t properly verified before the rush to air; to create famous “news personalities,” cleavage and bad behavior are rewarded with regular appearances (or sometimes even their own shows). These networks do offer good journalists like Zakaria and Amanpour, but they seem too few and far between. Twenty-four programming relies on quantity of words over quality of reporting. Although the American marketplace of ideas is one of the best ideas we’ve had, its success relies on responsible judgment. Most programs on the 24-hour news networks are at the 99-cent table at the marketplace of ideas, and it’s up to us to invest in something better. It seems that many people watch these channels not to learn about their world but to solidify their belief that they are smarter or more ethical than the people on screen, an easy feat against such competition.

The big issues are as tough as they are critical, and to respond wisely we must appreciate their complexities. Healthcare, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, free trade, alternative sources of energy, education quality and affordability: none of these provide an easy option free of unfortunate consequences, and (to quote Princess Bride) anyone who says differently is selling something.

Quality journalism is out there. We must choose it. If your means of gathering news makes the issues seem black and white or makes humanity seem either wise or stupid, then it’s not the right choice. If your means of gathering news propels you to mock more than you learn, it’s not the right choice. If your means of gathering news involves raised voices or name calling, again, it’s just not it. Although I cringe when I come across these methods and realize that committing any of them would have failed me out of my college journalism program, I blame the people who refuse to change the channel or turn off the TV more I blame those on the air. These networks are like the fast food of news: fine to consume every once in a while, but only alongside a steady diet of healthier fare.

As for me, I love settling into my reading chair with a big cup of coffee and my New York Times or Atlantic Monthly, to work with NPR in the background, to check in with NBC Nightly News with Dreamy Brian Williams most evenings, and to end my night with BBC World News. This is a good balance for me: these outlets are thorough, informative, and don't freak me out with apocalyptic predictions or crazy CGI. They don't pander to ego; I don’t want news to make me feel like the smartest person alive, and I don’t wish to believe that people I disagree with are simpletons or evil-doers. Instead I want my news to compel me to think, “Well crap, I didn’t think about it that way.”

The 24-hour networks are making us stupid, making us depressed, and at times, making us hate. How we process information affects the functioning of the brain, which needs exercise like any other muscle. Not much mind-flexing occurs while listening to yelling matches consisting of “I’m right, and you hate America!” coming from either side. Let’s not be in such a rush to consume news that we turn to the 24-hour networks. Let’s not be in such a rush to call someone an idiot that we forget to make ourselves intelligent.

The Healthcare Debate is Making Me Ill

I'm disheartened to see the healthcare debate de-evolve into a chaotic, uninformed mess. People who oppose Obama on other grounds use this debate as a vehicle for anger and indignation. The great majority of the public, myself included, lack the expertise to definitively suggest a solution. Physicians, economists, insurance executives, and patients all must contribute knowledge and learn from each other. I have an opinion based on what I've researched so far (a public option must be available to truly offer universal coverage and to challenge the private insurance companies' inflated pricing; regulations must force insurance companies not to discriminate in coverage, especially against the sick and elderly; all people must be encouraged to consider and plan for end-of-life options so that their wills are carried out so a family is not bankrupted by medical methods that a patient would oppose anyway). I also know, however, that I need to continually learn and adjust my opinion accordingly. No one's learning when everyone's yelling, though. Here are some of the reasons why protesters are clouding the debate and not helping it.

Note: A lot of my blog harkens back to the previous administration. I hate to examine the current situation by looking back on Bush (I hate to look back on Bush in general), yet the credibility of so many protesters is up for scrutiny when the main focus of their hatred is not big government or a deficit (which most conservatives previously ignored or supported) but a gripe against Obama himself. I want a productive debate and not a grudge match based on convenient and newly acquired values.

Nazi Germany/Communist China/Remember the Soviet Union?
Holy monkey, what is with all of the ignorant comparisons? You'd think there were two models in the world: American model versus total tyranny. The public insurance option is not a slippery slope to the Fourth Reich. The closest resemblance this proposed program bears to an existing healthcare program is Switzerland. Ooh, scary, tyrannical Switzerland! We'd be stripped of all personal freedoms but the right to great skiing! For this, Paul Krugman puts it far better than I can: The Swiss Menace.

Big Government Haters
We have people decrying big government. Fair enough. Yet most of these people turned a blind eye to the Patriot Act which granted government the right to access Americans' medical and tax records, see what books they borrow from the library, and even conduct secret searches. Envision the resulting outrage if Obama announced he'd allow the government to search our homes without a warrant or our knowledge that a search occurred. Yet Bush and Cheney did that without garnering a raised eyebrow from most conservatives. While I understand conservatives' concern over big government, I cannot take this concern seriously from anyone who supported the previous administration, which exercised the greatest amount of government authority in recent American history. It's ideologically inconsistent.

Deficit Spending
Again, I understand that people who are conservative oppose high government spending, even during a time of recession. I don't agree, but I get it. What I don't get is where the outrage was when Bush took the budget from a surplus into staggering deficit spending? Where was the outrage when Bush and Paulson began the government bailout system? (Why don't people remember that drastic stimulus spending did not begin with Obama?) Where was the conservative outrage when Bush passed over twenty of the first spending bills that hit his desk? Where was the outrage in 2003 when Bush passed the largest expansion of Medicare in its history?

Gun Toters
And then there are the crazies who show up to healthcare rallies -- HEALTHCARE RALLIES -- with loaded weapons. They cite their Constitutional right to bear arms, but fail to cite why that particular right feels threatened by a public insurance plan. Imagine what most Americans would think of a group of Americans of Arabic descent protesting against the American government bearing automatic weapons, just as protesters bore automatic weapons at an Obama event recently. Would we be talking about protecting Constitutional rights or talking about a clear and present danger to a president and everyone present?

Yellers of Fury
These are the people at town halls and protests proving that people compensate for ignorance with volume. They yell about Obama killing their grandma, they yell about the government taking over Medicare (??), they shout over their congressperson or senator. They remember that the Bill of Rights guarantees their right to free speech while forgetting that it allows other people the ability to speak as well. The Supreme Court ruling citing the unlawfulness of shouting fire in a crowded theatre seems to apply here: personal freedoms are not protected when they interfere with others' freedoms. When these protesters are asked to leave, they talk about this country becoming Nazi Germany. Do they remember that the Republican National Committee required people attending rallies to sign loyalty oaths to Bush? Where was their righteous indignation then? Again, I cringe at the inconsistency: Bush can insist that only his supporters are allowed in a room with him and somehow come off as patriotic; when protesters who are strapped to loaded weapons arrive at Obama's speeches and people frown upon that, Obama's somehow socialist.

Speaking Of...
Can we please offer a civics class and teach Americans what socialism is?

The "I'm as good as you are" Syndrome
There is something poignant and beautiful about our political system -- that our votes all count the same, that we're all equal. There's also something dangerous about this. I cringe to see people spouting views that are not factually accurate who believe that opinion is equally valid to researched conclusion of an expert. Perhaps we need to respect the intelligence of those who have spent their lives devoted to their causes, that we need to listen more than we speak, that we need to recognize the gaps in our knowledge. Many people pretend to shun intellectual elitism or snobbery when their true opposition is knowledge itself. Experts know more about healthcare and economics than I do, even though I've invested a good deal of time into trying to understand this issue. At this point in the debate, my job is to listen and learn, even when (and especially when) intelligent and reasonable people explain why they oppose my view. I've protested in the past, will protest again in the future, and respect people who do so; yet I only respect protesters who have done their homework first.

1-20-2009

1-20-2009.

This date has been a rallying cry for so many of us who have spent the last eight years as unwilling hostages in Bush country. The date was a promise of an end and, better yet, a promise of a beginning. I have to admit, though, that “1-20-2009!” became an empty phrase for me, akin to “Peace in the Mideast!” The concept sounded perfectly lovely, but it's nothing I ever really envisioned.

But then on Tuesday, it really was 1-20-2009.

I had gotten so used to hearing horrible news that anything seemed possible. If I woke up that morning to hear that Bush proclaimed himself Emperor-for-life and his first act was to arm children and tell them to hunt polar bears, I’d probably go about my day thinking, “Well, that sounds about right.” But no… millions of jubilant Americans filled DC. Obama was sworn in. Nobody blew anyone up. Bush flew home. Obama stayed. I felt like a kid whose parents just brought home a puppy: “You mean we can KEEP him???”

I cried quite a bit. It was a thawing of cynicism, a realization that hope isn’t foolish. As the leaders filed into the Capitol, I looked at the forlorn-looking Bush and the wheelchair-bound Cheney and felt sorry for them. I thought how awkward it must be to be so widely despised, to give eight years of your life for failure, to… NO! NO! NO! Reason slapped me in the face and reminded me that these are the men who defended torture, who spoke of global warming as a kooky conspiracy theory, who caused so much loss of life, nature, money, and morale. But for a moment, I was so touched by the day that I almost felt sorry for them. President Barack Obama made me drunk on hope.

Although I’ve cast a worried eye at Obama since the election, I’m starting to see things fit together. No, he will not be my liberal kick-ass president. He won’t flip righties the bird and save the world while wearing a biodegradable cape and NPR t-shirt. The dude’s going to compromise with people I don‘t like. I worry about the effectiveness about someone who compromises with so much at stake, but yet I see the genius in it when I hear hard-core Republicans giving him a chance and seeming to genuinely hope for his success. Obama just might be a great American statesman. I haven’t seen this during my lifetime, and I’m rather confused about it.

Or he might not be. He might fail, we might fall deeper into economic and international ruin, we might look back on this time as foolish and naive. Yet we really did have our 1-20-2009. I felt what it was like to listen to a president and feel proud, giddy, and hopeful, and I want to stay this way as long as possible. So here's to 1-20-2009 and beyond...

Change I Want To Believe In

Now that Obama conquered the moderate and progressive vote, he seems to be making the odd choice of turning to those who went McCain’s way. He named Clinton to the Cabinet (yay!), but as Sec of State (huh?). Clinton’s biggest about-face came when she suddenly turned against her earlier strong support of a Palestinian state to the more politically savvy position of unflinching support of Israel. Naming a vehemently pro-Israel Sec of State right now seems like taking a note from the George W. Bush school of diplomacy.

And why, pray tell, is Obama wavering on his earlier pledge to reverse the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy before their 2011 deadline? I’m hardly Paul Krugman here, but it seems as though we’re in desperate need of extra funds in this country and this is an obvious way to raise cash. Despite the hand-wringing over redistribution of wealth, this country has grown quite comfy with redistributing the wealth to the already wealthy. Step up, Obama, and make the wealthy pay what they should have been paying over the past eight years.

Following a decisive national victory from voters who demanded big change seems an odd time for Obama to shift right. He needs to be the president we elected him to be: one who values diplomacy over fightin’ words, who returns to the middle- and lower-classes what is theirs. Perhaps he’s wavering, perhaps he’s managing expectations, or perhaps he’s putting unity over conviction. We can’t know yet. As I read Frank Rich’s editorial on President Bush yesterday, I felt guilty for finding fault with Obama. We’ve spent eight years with an administration that defends legalized torture and logging in national parks with a straight face, and I’m finding qualms in a tax strategy? Yet it’s time to take our old standards of decency from that high shelf and dust them off. That isn’t to say Obama will be the messiah some make him out to be. Expectations for a second coming of FDR are rampant, and that scares me. We shouldn’t want FDR, but many of us do want that guy who gave the acceptance speech in Grant Park last November.

So, Mr. President-Elect Obama, I’ll still be psyched to watch you sworn in on the 20th. I’m sure I’ll smile all day, and knowing me, probably cry a little as well. But along with the giant foam “Obama’s #1” finger I’ll raise will be a raised eyebrow, as I wait with healthy skepticism to see that promised change.

Voting McCain? Read this first.

People who convince others to change their political views have all the effectiveness and likeability of those who aim for religious conversion. It’s clear that I’m voting for Obama, but I get that Obama is not for everyone. When people vote against Obama because they want us to continue our strategy in Iraq or because their income bracket means lower taxes with McCain, I can respect their vote while not sharing their views (or income bracket).

However, I cannot respect a vote based on misunderstanding. The following are reasons I’ve heard people voting against Obama and why I believe these to be largely a result of bad information and bias.

Reason 1: Obama will raise my taxes.
If you make under $112,000, you’ll pay less taxes under Obama than McCain. If you make over $161,000, you’ll pay more. Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy are actually a reversal of the Bush tax breaks set to expire in 2011, returning the tax code to its Reagan state. Because of the Bush cuts, America now has the widest gap between rich and poor since the Great Depression. If you support the Bush tax code, McCain is your candidate. (For a nonpartisan breakdown on how the proposals would affect you, click here.)

Reason 2: Obama lacks experience.
I concede this as the most valid criticism of the Obama candidacy. I don’t believe, however, that experience equals effectiveness. George W. Bush has had eight years of presidential experience; enough said. McCain has had an effective tenure in the Senate, but he’s shown himself to be a victim of his bad temper and one who rewards yes-men while shunning any who disagree. Such a man hasn’t served us well these past eight years. I’ll turn to conservative columnist George Will, who blew me away with this column:
“It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?” McCain Loses His Head, WaPo, 9/23/08

Reason 3: I’m a Republican/Libertarian. I favor small government.
I’m the wrong person to defend this, as I’m not a fan of minimizing government. I hear people calling universal healthcare socialistic and I recall that Medicare was opposed on the same grounds. I hear people calling for no taxes whatsoever, and I wonder who would pay for roads or public schools. So to break away from my bias, I’ll turn again to conservative George Will:
“The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale… Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?” McCain Loses His Head, WaPo, 9/23/08

Reason 4: I don't vote Democrat because I oppose abortion.
The next president will likely select a Supreme Court justice. With a Court that currently has four justices opposed to Roe v. Wade, this would spell doom to reproductive freedom in America. Please note: Supporting Roe v. Wade does not mean supporting abortion as quick-stop birth control. Almost all of us can agree that the goal is to minimize the need for abortion via sex education and affordable birth control, both of which are shunned by McCain and soon-to-be-grandma Palin. Obama has stated his commitment to age-appropriate sex education, prevention of unintended pregnancies, and access to legal and safe abortions for those who need them.

My criticism of many anti-choice voters is that their concern for human welfare largely ends when one leaves the womb. For those who oppose Obama because they respect life, I’d like to ask them:

• What about the lives of soldiers and Marines in Iraq who are dying for a war waged on very precarious grounds and still lacks an exit strategy? McCain wants to keep them fighting.
• What about the lives of the sick who are unable to obtain health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition? The McCain proposal does nothing to help them.
• What about the uninsureds who fill ERs with illnesses that could have been avoided with preventative care or been handled by a GP? There is a hidden tax on all of us when uninsureds turn to the ER for care, leaving the tab for taxpayers.
• What about prisoners in Guantanamo Bay who are denied legal representation by their American captors? Haven't we prided ourselves in how we treat our friends AND enemies?

Being "pro-life" should mean protecting and defending the lives and health of those around us.

Reason 5: But Obama’s black and will likely be assassinated.
Holy crap, I actually heard this one and nearly lost all faith in humanity. For people with this amount of reason and logic, I beg of them to stay home and not vote at all. Ugh.

On Palin and Feminism

The selection of Palin as Republican VP nominee pulled me in several directions. As a Democrat, I was thrilled. (An inexperienced Alaskan governor known for ethical reform who is currently under investigation in an illegal firing? Are you serious?) McCain’s pick of someone whom he proudly proclaimed as an unknown within the Beltway completely discredited his criticism of his opponent as inexperienced. The idea of a Biden-Palin debate gave me a maniacal laugh and a Mr. Burns-esque proclamation of, "Eeeeex-cellent."

But as a feminist, the selection of Palin left me angered and embarrassed. It didn’t anger me so much for her socially conservative views; although they are far from my own, they make sense for McCain’s running mate. The selection of Palin angered me because she is so ill-prepared for the job. This 44-year-old former beauty queen with a BS in journalism became a television sports reporter upon graduation. She began in the city council of Wasilla, a town of 6,000, and worked her way up to mayor, where she was two years ago. She’s now spent a year and a half as governor of Alaska. Good for her. A good start to a political career. But good enough to be president?

This unknown and largely untested woman with not a day of foreign policy experience would serve as VP under a man in his 70s with recurrent cancer. She'd be a heartbeat away from leading a country mired in economic recession and two wars (perhaps three or four, if McCain gets elected). McCain would rather pander for the female vote than to select someone who would effectively manage this country upon his death. It speaks volumes about his judgment.

And it speaks volumes about his views on women. He seems to believe that women will support a candidate not based upon record, but upon the ever-important issue of who has a hoo-hoo or a wee-wee. McCain seems to bank upon we Clinton supporters bailing Obama to support the new potential hoo-hoo in office -- never mind that her meager record stands in opposition to the core values Clinton represents. Having my rights taken away by a woman leaves me no more empowered.

Talking heads ponder how a Republican female nominee will affect the feminist vote. I’ll fill you in on a secret: we feminists don’t meet in secret weekly meetings to determine the choices we will make en masse. This will be largely made up of individual decisions across the country, and this is my own.

As a feminist, I’m embarrassed that the first Republican female name on the presidential ballot will be an utterly inexperienced candidate who was chosen for her gender, not her record.

As a feminist, I’ll stick with the candidate promoting universal healthcare, reproductive rights, equal pay, increased funding to education, and an end to the Iraq War – issues that impact women’s public and private roles.

As a feminist, the past few days have left me wanting to take a long nap.

Know When to Fold 'Em.

My reaction to this week's primaries.

This isn't easy for me; I voted for the woman. It's time, though, to graciously step down and back Obama.

Thus proving the theory that my support is the kiss of death for political candidates. Please understand why I may now devote my blog to the cause of McCain's election. McCain/Romney '08!! WOO!!! (feels... so... dirty...)

Chelsea's Secret

When I get the opportunity to meet a politician I support, I come ready with something to say about my big issues. When I met Hillary Clinton in 2004, I thanked her for the work she’s done on behalf of women and children, saying that the country will need such a leader to run in ’08. She smiled knowingly, thanked me, and said, “Honey, your blouse is just darling.” I would’ve ripped it off my back and given it to her if she asked. With Howard Dean, I thanked him for supporting reproductive rights and other women's issues. With John Edwards, I looked him in those clear blue eyes and thanked him for inspiring me with a speech that took big stands on Iraq and healthcare. I also would’ve ripped off my blouse for him, but for entirely different reasons. (My mom is reading this, likely turning three shades of red and shaking her head at me.)

With Chelsea Clinton, one big question loomed on my mind. What kind of hair products does that women use, and where can I get them? It’s as if she stumbled out of a Pantene commercial onto the campaign trail. When I found myself shaking her hand, however, I wimped out. Instead, I told her that I had just voted for her mom and how proud I was to support her in the primary, blah blah blah. I still don’t know the secret of the hair.

Here we are, in-between rain storms as her hair holds up just fine in North Carolina humidity while I surrender mine into a ponytail. D'oh.

A Modest Proposal

My enthusiasm for this primary has quickly subsided. While I still believe we have two Democratic candidates who would greatly help the US, I’m sick of this process. As I started watching debates back when Gravel and Kucinich were invited, it’s been TEN MONTHS of them. Anyone who cares to know where the differences in policy are already knows them. The only thing left to do is to rehash old lines, artificial stereotypes, and campaign blunders. It’s all contrived dramatics, ensuring that we’ll elect the best candidate and not the best president. And frankly, people who are good at being candidates kind of scare me.

Why can’t we make this easier? Why can’t we have a national primary, for crying out loud? Why can’t the rules be the same for both parties? Why can't we have a series of specific debates (foreign policy, economy, social issues, etc.) leading to one stinkin’ primary? Instead, this primary is all over the place. The Republican primary with its winner-takes-all approach ensures a quicker nomination. The Democratic one (holy monkey, what the hell? superdelegates?) ensures that this will go on until both candidates have smeared each other to a point of unelectability in November. As much as the Republican party makes me want to cry, they’ve got strategy. Watching the Dems is like watching a school play put on by kindergarteners. They sure are cute, but after a while, it just becomes painful.

And the sexism so engrained in coverage of Hillary Clinton makes me ill. We call men by their last names and women by their first. When Clinton shows emotion, we think she’s unhinged and wonder “which Hillary will show up today” (because if a woman is happy one day and upset the next, she’s hormonal or bipolar – she couldn’t possibly have legitimate grievances). This nation still fears a woman with opinions. People conclude that we’re more sexist than racist, but Obama doesn’t exude the same assertiveness that his opponent does. If the bodies were switched, Obama would be seen as an angry black man and Clinton would be a woman of the people. When dealing with women and minorities, the award goes to the most pleasing, not the most deserving. That is appalling. And unfortunately, that is our Democratic primary.

But seriously… having one national primary… what am I missing? Why don’t we do this?

I miss Edwards and Kucinich. sighhhh.

Observations From Primary Season

1. The people chanting “USA” at McCain rallies are idiots. While chanting in general doesn’t signal much in the way of brain activity, chanting “USA” (á la Homer Simpson) in a race between Americans is just silly.

2. A sleepy Tim Russert begins to look like a Muppet. He’s the love child of Statler and Waldorf.

3. CNN’s gadget budget is out of control.

4. The media love a good sports analogy, whether or not it makes sense. “This is the ninth inning, bases loaded. Clinton’s at bat, Obama’s on deck. The pitcher, the American mom, throws the curveball of independent voters through the air of possible recession…”

5. Wolf Blitzer is a condescending jerk.

6. Brian Williams is a dreamboat and I love him.

7. Most voters have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. The “man on the street” interviews are arguments against democracy.

8. What’s with all the diners? Are these people campaigning in 1955?

9. Most common phrase coming from a candidate: “Now I don’t know about you, but I think… [insert common sense idea here].”

10. It’ll be a long, painful road to November.

The Clintons... racist? C'mon.

Although I’m far from being a Clinton apologist, Hillary and Bill Clinton are getting unfairly slammed right now. Obama compared himself to MLK recently, setting himself up for a pretty tough comparison. Obama can inspire a crowd and his skills as an orator are undeniable. Obama’s record, however, is pretty sparse; even his supporters must allow for that. Hillary Clinton made a fair point: she said that MLK did more than give inspiring speeches. King led a movement, he actively worked with politicians like LBJ to transform ideas into law. On his own, MLK inspired Americans and ignited a movement; with LBJ, he created laws and immediate change. (Her full quote to the NY Times: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.") MLK worked with LBJ (a civil rights hero in his own right) and got things done. It is also true that Obama hasn't passed much in the way of the sweeping reform that he's spoken of; however, this charge can be refuted based on many things. Semantics, though, should not be among them.

Some have turned Clinton's into a swipe at MLK. (Obama's reply: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that.") I am very disappointed in Obama as he encourages this implication. Obama has not ran on race and I don't want to see him use race to injure Clinton. She refuted the comparison Obama made between himself and King, and Obama should be strong enough to answer it instead of merely dodge it under insinuating comments.

Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark is another example of this. The “fairy tale” remark was in context of Obama’s anti-war record, not on Obama’s candidacy. Again, Clinton makes an excellent point – Obama made a wonderful speech against the Iraq War in 2002, but once the war had popular support, Obama yanked the text of that speech from his web site in 2003. During the Kerry campaign in 2004, Obama voiced doubt over his vote. Obama proceeded to vote to fund the war over the following years. Bill Clinton wasn’t saying that it was a “fairy tale” that a black man could be president, but only questioning his credentials as a staunchly anti-war candidate. It is a very valid point. People who want to be offended by him are choosing to be. (My boy Edwards is another one unfairly jumping on the knee-jerk bandwagon on this one. Watch it, Johnny; your response to the “emotional” episode in the NH campaign was another disappointment. These responses reek of desperation.)

It is a huge deal that a black man and a woman have won presidential primaries. Women haven’t even been able to vote for 100 years, and black Americans faced Jim Crow just sixty years ago. But it seems that Obama and Clinton are becoming reduced to being merely a black man and a woman, instead of the very worthy candidates they both are. Raise the fighting to the level of their credentials, their stances, and leave race and gender out of it.

Banging my head against the wall

I don't mean to sound elitist, but it makes me cry that my vote counts just as much as the vote of this man, quoted today in the Charlotte Observer:

"Smith is a fishing-boat captain and he just got back from two weeks at sea. He didn't watch the debates on TV, but he spent a lot of time on the water thinking about what he wants in a candidate. Barack Obama intrigues him, but Smith says Obama has two red flags: 'One, that name. That's going to give him trouble. And the other thing is his father leaving him when he was so young. That kind of thing has an effect on you your whole life. When you're talking about a president, all the details matter.'"

Meanwhile I'm wrestling with the question of how many/what kind of military personnel to leave in Iraq. Yet Smithy up there will be among the voters in the crucial South Carolina primary. Aaaagghhhh.

Primary Bingo!

First off... If you know CNN is tripe but find yourself watching it anyway on Tuesday night for the New Hampshire primary results, feel free to play CNN New Hampshire Primary Bingo, as created by yours truly. There’s a card for you and one for whomever you force to play along.

And now, time for my rant…

Americans are suffering from the delusion that we're voting for the candidate we want to come over for dinner or to be the leader of our clubhouse. People discuss which candidate seems the nicest, most sincere. Who seems polished, but not artificial. Who would get a haircut where we would or go to church with the fam and fit in OK.

Ask a random person who they’ll vote for, and chances are that their response will involve a “seem.” Obama seems to be the voice of optimism, Clinton seems to have the experience needed for the job, Huckabee seems to have the confidence to refute basic science as he reflects upon the origin of the universe. I want to ban the word “seems” from electoral discussions. The only reason that candidates seem to be anything is because their campaign manager deemed it so. They’re all politicians. They’re all that way. Some are just better at playing their part.

So a modest proposal – let’s vote according to issues. It boggles my mind that some people don’t yet know if they’ll vote for a Republican or a Democrat. The parties couldn’t be more different. One wants to end to the Iraq war, one supports it; one urges universal healthcare, one deems the idea socialist; one wants to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the other wants to uphold them. How could anyone not see a difference? There is a core difference in values between the two. For those of you not knowing which party to vote for, I want to flick you in the forehead. For those who know their party of choice but haven’t yet settled on a candidate, you’re spared the flicking but directed towards the NY Times chart offering a basic guide to where the candidates stand on issues.

For more on this, I turn to The Onion.

The official FeministChick endorsement goes to John Edwards. I have been a curious spectator of his for some time, but his early specific stances he voiced on Iraq, climate change. and taxes wooed me and made me a believer. I dig a candidate who admits that taxes will have to go up in order to accomplish his goals; I’m willing to pay more taxes if the money goes toward healthcare, alternative energy sources, and other things that aren't war. I think gleefully of the idea of Edwards repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and directing the dollars toward his healthcare initiative. Edwards does get a deduction in cool points for his lack of support for gay marriage, but everyone shy of Kucinich does as well. (Kucinich has my heart – for being as short as he is, he has the biggest backbone of any candidate.) However, my support tends to be the kiss of death – ask the Redskins, Howard Dean, and nearly everyone on my Oscar ballot last year. So sorry about that, John.

Bill, I love you so, I always will...

Things I learned while shaking Bill Clinton's hand at a Hillary rally today:

1. The man can work a room. He exudes charm.

2. He totally gave me a second look.

3. He smells so good I could lick him. While he shook the hands of people behind me, I was pressed into him for a blissful thirty seconds or so. Any thought of saying something intelligent about Iraq or the environment faded to, "Is it improper to ask a former president what he's wearing that smells so good?"

I hate Ann Coulter.

When I was little, Mom never let me use the word “hate” in reference to anyone. It was alright if I didn’t like someone, even a whole whole lot, but I could never hate them. But Mom, my thirty years have taught me the true definition of hate, and I have found a worthy exception. I hate Ann Coulter.

I try not to hate her. I try to not think about her and when her name arises in conversation, I try to change the subject. My theory is that if people stay silent about the bony hussy then maybe she’ll fade away into her own irrelevance. But alas, no luck. Network news reports her views, morning news shows check in with her, cable news lives so far up her rear that they’re staring out her throat. And the only thing I can do is change the channel while hating Ann Coulter.

I know it’s the media I should hate, the media that provide her with a microphone, the media that run her column. But each time she speaks, that hatred just goes right back to Evil Barbie herself. How has she gotten to the position of “pundit”? What experience does she have? What knowledge of hers do we seek? She merely spouts malicious and juvenile attacks toward anyone veering left of fascist, enjoying the reaction as does a toddler who just learned his first cuss word. She flaunts skirts too short, hair too long, and desperation far too apparent (no matter how much cleavage or leg you show, Ann, you’re not hiding your age from anyone, honey). She “attacks” people by calling them gay. Ann, a little head’s up – this generation doesn’t see “gay” as a slur. Anyone walking upright on the evolutionary scale doesn’t see “gay” as a slur. Then again, the people Ann courts don’t buy into that evolution business anyhow.

I wish, I really wish, I could let it all go. She’s ridiculous, she’s irrelevant, she needs to be ignored. But again and again, Ann Coulter finds her way into the news and into my seething angst. Luckily, someone far classier than I answered her attacks this week: Elizabeth Edwards. She called during Coulter’s Hardball appearance (the day after Coulter said she wished John Edwards died in a terrorist attack). Elizabeth calmly asked for an end to personal attacks that only interrupt the political process, citing the time Coulter “joked” that John Edwards had the bumpersticker, “Ask me about my dead son.” Coulter just flung her hair around and asked why Elizabeth called instead of her husband. Elizabeth again cited the need for true political debate in this election and then said, “I am the mother of that boy who died.” Even that didn’t wipe Coulter’s smug grin off that long, horsey face of hers.

Perhaps one day, people will stop caring what Ann Coulter thinks and she will fade into her own irrelevance and I can let this grudge go. But until then, I’m afraid… I hate Ann Coulter.

However, I love David Letterman:

Zakaria in '08

Fareed Zakaria does it again. His recent article in Newsweek, Beyond Bush, knocked it out of the park. He does what few of us are capable of doing: moving past the whining and the doomsday scenarios, and onto the, "OK, so what next?"

[I]t is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush—a cheering prospect for his foes, a dismaying one for his fans (however few there may be at the moment). In 19 months he will be a private citizen, giving speeches to insurance executives. America, however, will have to move on and restore its place in the world. Read article.

And they're off...

Watching the Democratic debate was thrilling in that it gave me a feeling I hadn’t experienced during a political speech in years: it was this feeling of, well… it was the absence of shame. After eight years of listening to Bush, hearing a politician speak without stumbling seems like the presence of a master rhetorician at work. I’m now dazzled by three-syllable words coming from a podium. A complex sentence? Be still my heart.

While I’m still not aligned with any one candidate, I’ve become quite fond of Edwards. I’ve made a chart showing each of the candidates and their stances on issues, and the Edwards column is by far the most specific and impressive. My initial opinion of him was an underestimate: his specific plans for universal healthcare, environmental regulations, the Iraq War and so on have distinguished him as not only a serious contender, but also have earned him his liberal stripes.

And Hillary recovered some serious ground for me last night. Her recent pandering (flag burning? really?) has been painful, but last night she impressed me (her answers on Iraq and healthcare, especially). The e-mail she sent in response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling was a good one. Saying she’d put Bill to work as an international ambassador? I’m swooning! She’s back, baby; she’s back.

Obama. Ahhh, Obama. I want to like him more than I do. He’s a wonderful speaker. His ideas are so pretty. He makes you feel that the country would hug if only he was elected. I haven’t heard him say anything, though, that distinguishes his views from the standard moderate-left. His column on my chart is lacking – general ideas, no specifics. I’m not counting him out, but I need more.

I especially enjoyed the presence of Kucinich and Gravel, who, due to their snowball-in-hell chance, have the freedom to speak unpopular ideas (a la Sharpton; I really dug him in 2004). A Democratic debate without a staunch anti-war presence would be lacking. Sure, the American people won’t go for it because our society is built around war (our holidays, our monuments, our history books…), but it was fantastic to hear views from the real left. Gravel was like that drunk guy at a party who makes everyone roll their eyes, yet shift their weight uncomfortably due to some hard truths in his rants. To hear him say that the deaths of soldiers in Vietnam and Iraq were in vain was shocking to hear from an elected official (who usually dodge the issue with the standard, “I support our troops and the sacrifice that they and their families are making…”). I also enjoyed the dramatics of Kucinich holding up a pocket copy of the Constitution while explaining his decision to go it alone to try to impeach Cheney. Even if these guys will never present a State of the Union , they’ll force the top-tier candidates to answer some uncomfortable questions and remind Americans that there are options beside the flag-in-one-hand, gun-in-the-other approach.

Here's the soapbox portion of my blog: I don’t know how to end this without being melodramatic, so I’ll just say that if one of the people on that stage last night does not get elected as president, our country is done for (how’s that for melodrama?). Find your favorite candidates, sign up for their e-mails, learn their views. If a candidate doesn’t strike your fancy yet, find your issues and the groups that will support them best. Throw a few bucks their way. And for the love of all things good and holy, register to vote. I'm sick of hearing people rant about politics, but then not actively learn the issues or contribute to campaigns or interest groups. Make this a priority. We can’t screw this up again.

Out on my limb

I’m calling it now: John Edwards is one to watch. With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the limelight so early, the press is waiting to pounce on a misstep. While I don’t think either will provide any macaca-esque moments, I fear another Dean-in-Iowa speech that destroys a great campaign because it provides DJs with a sound clip and uninformed voters with a punchline. If these two are taken down, the Dems will need another.

Enter John Edwards. I heard him speak in Charlotte last month and was trés impressed. I walked into the room as a curious spectator, but left believing he could be back on the ticket in '08, possibly in the driver's seat this time. While I prefer my politics with a little more anger (ohhh, Howie), I think Edwards will have broad appeal to moderates of both parties. His looks won’t hurt either. The man is a looker on TV, but in person, wooo-weee. I was reduced to girlish giggles while shaking his hand. I don't have enough answers to align with any candidate yet, but I've quickly progressed from dismissive to very interested in this one (za-za-zu aside).

But then again, this prediction is brought to you by the one who thought Amazon.com didn’t stand a chance, buying an Arlington condo in 2001 was a dumb move, and “Everyone Loves Raymond” looked idiotic and wouldn't last beyond the pilot. But I swear, these laserdiscs are gonna catch on one day…

Until then, enjoy this -- dreaminess ^2: