I’m in a sympathetic mood, because I just finished listening to Mat Johnson on a podcast talking about the diehard Clinton supporters who have clearly projected their own struggles onto Hillary Clinton and are taking her defeat in the primary as a referendum on their very right to be in the public sphere. Johnson made the point that he felt the same way as an Obama supporter in a lot of ways—-specifically, the chance to look at the candidate and relate in a way that’s previously been denied you—-and to be deprived that at what no doubt seems the last minute has got to be frustrating. He also makes some good points about the dynamics of the race, and how Obama’s campaign was privileged by the slow build, and Clinton’s campaign turned into a nightmare as they lost their grasp, and these things, independent of identity politics, framed the nastiness of the primary. He also makes points that resonated with me about why, if Clinton’s loss seems so personal to some women, it just doesn’t to me, which is complex and not worth going into here.
So, it’s with sympathy that I read this piece by Erica Jong (hat tip) about how personal the whole loss feels to some women. I am sympathetic, for instance, to this, even as I disagree with it.
[Opposition leader] David Cameron has revealed his much commented upon centre-parting at last week’s prime minister’s questions was the result of wearing a bike helmet.
Mr Cameron, who normally parts his hair to one side, had a new look for the clash with Gordon Brown on Wednesday.
No word on how he feels about whiskey, but at least he’s not a windsurfer.
Unlike Ta-Nehisi, I don’t find the problem to be Krugman’s citation of faceless fervent Obama supporters, but instead this:
Fervent supporters of Barack Obama like to say that putting him in the White House would transform America. With all due respect to the candidate, that gets it backward. Mr. Obama is an impressive speaker who has run a brilliant campaign — but if he wins in November, it will be because our country has already been transformed.
(Emphasis added.)
Now, I’m not of the opinion that the Glorious Revolution* will transform our nation outright, but I’m starting to notice an undercurrent of dismissiveness towards what Obama represents. When he becomes president, it won’t be because he put together a remarkable campaign that took on the best opposition available and triumphed over it, or because he mounted a campaign that put forth the first credible black candidate in a general election and convinced enough of the American public that he was better than their worst fears about black men and the black community.
No, it’ll be because we did the hard work of letting ourselves know that black people really aren’t that scary, and (presumably) that Obama just happened to stumble along and notice the sign on the window that said “Help Wanted - First Black President”.
I’m already tired of accomplishments that aren’t accomplishments because they were accomplished.
*This week’s edict from the Revolution: Macbeth was no longer written by William Shakespeare, but instead by Tyler Perry. Lady Macbeth was never so sassy!
I hadn’t seen the outrageous recent ad by the menstrual pain reliever Midol, but it hasn’tgoneunnoticed. Unlike this ridiculous ad from the 1960s (“Betty’s Gay with Midol”, today’s marketing geniuses decided that the new slogan for the product should be “Midol, Reverse the Curse.”
The ad was described by feministabonita:
The commercial “There is a reason it’s called the curse, _____________ ** , cramps and bloating” (commercial shows women in their bras with extended bellies) Then it goes on to blab about Midol…and shows a happy woman running down the beach.
I assume that after we get a euphoric high from taking Midol, we must run around and what not. We feel alive and energetic released from the repressions of menstruation, something that is inconceivable when plagued with cramps and bloating.
See Emily Blog said:
Look, no one said that time of the month is fun- but a curse? It’s a bodily function. Sure, it’s great that women who have really bad symptoms have medications like Midol available to them so that they don’t have to spend the week in bed, but you don’t have to make them feel bad about being a woman. The commercial is supposed to be empowering, but how is telling women that they have a curse on them ever supposed to be empowering?
I actually just received a letter from a reader about this Midol madness. Read the letter—and the response from the company—below the fold.
For blatantly partisan reasons, I hope that H. Ross Perot makes a big stink out of the story of McCain’s first wife. From what I understand of the wingnut mind, the people already wary of McCain will feel vindicated about using his POW status against him as evidence that he’s not a real man, especially since his wife got into a terrible car accident while he was gone and Perot, a big POW advocate, paid for her medical bills. As Glenn Greenwald amply demonstrated in his book Great American Hypocrites, given the choice between a real war hero/veteran and one who plays pretend like George W. Bush or John Wayne, wingnuts will pick the latter every time. Pretend war heroes give you that juice of manly courage without all the messy realities. Real veterans are often regarded with suspicion, since it’s assumed that having actually seen the reality of war, they might not be gung-ho about pretending it’s a cross between a Hollywood movie and a sports event. Look at what’s happened with McCain. Even though he’s been a loyal asshole and supported torture, he’s gotten a reputation as someone “weak”, because he’s actually been tortured, and it’s assumed he’s lost his taste for it. None of this applies to the larger population of Americans, though, who do think of genuine military service as an asset.
I’m skeptical (as I think Nick is) that the whole story of what happened after McCain got back from Vietnam will hurt McCain in the “family values” department. If he was a woman, well yeah. Dumping the first spouse for one that has the money and connections to start your political career—-and who looks better on your arm as a trophy—-who you then denigrate with gendered insults would pretty much be the end of that woman’s career in politics. But since the phrase “family values” is a euphemism for “patriarchy”, I can expect this whole story of McCain’s adulteries and his trading the old model wife for a new, better-functioning one will not hurt him with the “family values” set. Most of those who are wary of him are wary because they think he’s secretly pro-choice or something. And with some of the “family values” set, McCain will be more likeable because he knows how to put a bitch into her place.
Fred Hiatt breaks through the hemp-lined flower shield of dirty hippiedom and throws some truth in our faces:
But dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
Oh no! He cited some places where things were “generally substantiated by intelligence information”! We know from a lifetime of selling temporary henna tattoos at the local farmer’s market that if people “generally” say truth-like things, it means that their credibility is unimpeachable. What say you, Mr. Final Phase II Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence?
Openly frustrated by what they see as an ongoing double standard in the press’s treatment of his campaign, Sen. John McCain and his aides have been aggressively denouncing unfavorable stories as “smear jobs” and “scurrilous attacks,” while the candidate himself has launched a series of stinging attacks on Sen. Barack Obama.
It’s a dangerous posture for a candidate whose political success is intimately tied with his image as an irrepressible happy warrior — equal parts President Ronald Reagan and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, with a dash of his old Arizona buddy Rep. Mo Udall’s sharp sense of humor — and whose appeal to independents owes nearly as much to character and personal narrative as to issues and ideology.
Shorter Politico: I thought we were friends, John! Friends! You even signed my yearbook!
[T]he Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama’s “present” votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.
President Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote “yes” on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote “present” so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a “present” was as good as an outright “no” because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.
On Friday, Barack Obama’s campaign held a conference call for about 1200 bloggers, media and LGBT community members to discuss its outreach efforts for the general election. I was invited to be on the impromptu call, but it coincided right when I was on a flight. The good news is Andrew Belonsky of Queerty was on and blogged it.
What’s notable is that Obama deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, acknowledged Hillary Clinton voters’ participation and importance in the primary process.
Now that Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination, however, the Senator’s campaign must do everything in its power to rally the gay troops ahead of November’s election. And, obviously, it won’t be easy and it happen over night, nor does the campaign expect such a turn around. Said Hildebrand:
We know that there are a lot of people who have supported Senator Clinton who are on the call with us today and we greatly appreciate that. We know that each of you will take your time to wrap your head around the situation, to hopefully join Barack in his venture moving forward at whatever point you are comfortable doing so. We certainly recognize the pain that goes with some of this, but know that you have a welcome home here that we need your help, that we want your help. We will take it whenever you are ready should you get to that point.
In order to stress the message of unity - and prove the campaign’s gay chops - Hildebrand then turned the call over to Elizabeth Birch, the former HRC executive director who lent her support to Clinton’s campaign.
In perhaps the most emotional explanation we’ve heard on the matter, Birch explained the significance of this election in her family, which includes two biracial twins, a girl and a boy. Said Birch, “…From the beginning had to be careful about how wildly enthusiastic we were about Hillary Clinton because, quite frankly, my little boy looks like Obama. So, it was complex and emotional.”
Andrew noted:
[W]e heard two distinct emotions in every speaker’s voice: dedication and desperation. The Obama campaign clearly understands the danger of losing gay supports – and gay supporters should equally recognize the danger of missing out on Obama.
Other points stressed during the call:
* Birch also aptly noted that John McCain does not present a legitimate pro-LGBT alternative, since he represents a continuation of Bush Administration policies and outlook.
* David Mixner (who initially backed John Edwards) and Joe Solomnese were on the call to lend their support.
* The campaign will model its game plan on DNC head Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, setting up hundreds of offices to do outreach.
* The DNC’s Brian Bond, who will be based in Chicago for the general election, will coordinate constituent outreach.
* Obama’s campaign says it is committed to placing LGBT leaders in key posts.
What I didn’t see in Andrew’s report is whether there were any LGBT people of color who spoke on that call, or whether there would be outreach to ensure that there will be visible minority LGBTs who are a part of Obama’s team. While it is important to include the well-known go-to gays already installed inside the Beltway, part of effecting true change is to recognize the talent out there that will represent the true diversity of our community.
This is particularly important as Barack Obama has been the only presidential candidate to challenge homophobia in the black church. He has done so in front of those audiences not accustomed to being challenged for fomenting bigotry from the pulpit. With that tough medicine must come the salve of visibility, because so many religious LGBTs of color are still afraid to come out of the closet for fear of being culturally and physically exiled from their communities. Many are not comfortable when exiled to the openly gay, socially and politically active community, which is still white dominated and largely insular, exacerbating the perception that LGBT people of color either do not exist and thus there is no problem to combat.
One would hope that Obama, as a perceived change agent, will address this, so that we see more color in the LGBT crowd - black, brown, yellow, etc., as well as gender and gender-identity diversity, the class divide, and regional diversity.
We have our own community diversity issues to address on that front—I’m speaking about our perceived LGBT advocacy organizations—the dearth of color in visible positions in these groups means by default that the go-to people the media or political campaigns rely upon don’t represent the diversity of the community either.
The fact is that we’re all out here, and we’re all voters—and potential leaders simply because many of us are visible. And we know that coming out and being visible is the most powerful change agent there is. How or if that diverse resource is tapped will speak volumes about whether there is real change afoot, or business as usual in our community as well.
Barack Obama’s message to the LGBT community is below the fold.
OMFG. Echidne posted a link to blinkytreefrog, who found a book from about 1951 called “On Becoming A Woman”. Which is very fortuitous, as the Human Life Alliance has put a PDF of their abstinence-only rags “Just For Girls” and “Just For Boys”, which are similar to this 1951 book to the degree that they could be plagiarists. Except I think that woman-hating, sex-phobic nuts basically eat and shit this stuff, so it’s less plagiarism and more the fiber of their beings. Shall we do a dance of comparison?
Even on a day of great unity, where Senator Clinton made a gracious and much-needed overture towards repairing the deep rifts in a great political party, I ask that none of us forget the one overarching lesson of this seemingly endless primary season.
Mr. Penn pushed for aggressive attacks on Mr. Obama, something other advisers resisted. At one point, Mr. Penn argued that Mrs. Clinton should find subtle ways to exploit what he called Mr. Obama’s “lack of American roots,” referring to his Kenyan father and his childhood years in Indonesia and even the offshore state of Hawaii, the campaign officials said. Mr. Penn recommended that Mrs. Clinton own the word “American” — she should talk about the “American century” and her “American Strategic Energy Fund,” and so forth. She should add flag symbols to her logo, he suggested.
I’m in a sympathetic mood, because I just finished listening to Mat Johnson on a podcast talking about the diehard Clinton supporters who have clearly projected their own struggles onto Hillary Clinton and are taking her defeat in the primary as a referendum on their very right to be in the public sphere. Johnson made the point that he felt the same way as an Obama supporter in a lot of ways—-specifically, the chance to look at the candidate and relate in a way that’s previously been denied you—-and to be deprived that at what no doubt seems the last minute has got to be frustrating. He also makes some good points about the dynamics of the race, and how Obama’s campaign was privileged by the slow build, and Clinton’s campaign turned into a nightmare as they lost their grasp, and these things, independent of identity politics, framed the nastiness of the primary. He also makes points that resonated with me about why, if Clinton’s loss seems so personal to some women, it just doesn’t to me, which is complex and not worth going into here. 
For blatantly partisan reasons, I hope that 
Fred Hiatt breaks through the hemp-lined flower shield of dirty hippiedom and 