anythings.org

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

Not shockingly, each of the presidential candidates issued a statement yesterday about the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the gay marriage ban. Even less shocking: all 3 candidates oppose gay marriage. Which, to be honest, is a position I understand for Obama and Clinton because the percentage of people in America who support gay marriage fluctuates to be a little more or a little less than 50%. But nevertheless, here are their statements in the court’s decision.

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

Courtesy of the Broadsheet, when being interview by a female reporter, Sen. Obama responded to her question by saying, “Hold on, one second, sweetie.”

This isn’t the first time Sen. Obama has made sexist remarks towards or about women that he’s had to go back and apologize for. Better yet, there’s a video clip of the sexist comment.

Sen. Obama, of course, apologized for the comment in order to avoid any additional negative press. He claimed “sweetie” was a term he used out of habit. Sorry, still not buying it.

Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I’m calling to apologize on two fronts. […]

Second apology is for using the word ’sweetie.’ That’s a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.

So, where is the video of Sen. Obama calling a man “sweetie?” Right, that’s what I thought, there isn’t one.

I officially hate today. Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party’s likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Edwards made a surprise appearance with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as the Illinois senator campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary. The loss highlighted Obama’s challenge in winning over the “Hillary Democrats” — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.

Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, “brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats” to defeat McCain. “We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”

He said Obama “stands with me” in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years.

Edwards also praised Clinton, saying “we are a stronger party” because of her involvement, and “we’re going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work.”

You can praise her all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re just hoping for the VP nod.

If you’re going to make an endorsement because you’re trying to help a candidate win an election, that’s fine with me. But when you make an endorsement, make it clear why you’re selecting candidate A in favor of candidate B, don’t just simply state that you’re endorsing candidate A.

My favorite part of the endorsement had to be when Nancy Keenan said the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Obama will be our next president.

It’s nice to know that you aren’t letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment and make endorsements on behalf of an entire agency. Why didn’t she just say “I like Obama better than Clinton, ne-ner-ne-ner-neeee-ner!” - because that’s what it sounds like.

I knew today was going to be a good day this morning when I came to work and checked my feeds and discovered three “news” items that made me grin from ear to ear. They are the following:

1. The Gallup poll that shows 71% of Americans don’t like Bush’s job performance. His rating is actually worse than Nixon’s 66% disapproval rating during the Watergate scandal. I think this warrants the purchasing of one of those “01.20.09″ bumper stickers.
2. Not that I’m bragging, but a poll done by CNN shows that Obama is losing support. In my completely unprofessional (and100% personal) opinion, his loss of support might be attributed to his losing Pennsylvania. Clinton lost support when she went through her losing streak during the February primaries, and she came back out alright, so there is a chance that Obama could easily regain that support. Either way, this election feels like it will never end. I guess I’ll just have to keep waiting for the convention in August.
3. A huge “lol of the day,” and probably the best thing I’ve seen in the past month (thanks, Anna):

From Popaganda artist Ron English, via Juxtapoz.

All in all, it’s looking like it’s going to be a great Friday.

I couldn’t have put it better myself:

If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:

Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner?
Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me?
Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner?
Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you?
Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates!
Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states?
Violet: Right.
Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question?
Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count?
Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!
Violet: But what about his delegates?
Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?
Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.
Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now.
Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes.
Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican?
Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A.
Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate?
Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A.
Old Pro: It is Humphrey!

Me, personally, I don’t understand why everyone is so eager to declare Obama as the Democratic party “front runner.” I don’t want the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008 to be weak in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania… need I go on? That just spells yet another recipe for disaster for the Democratic party, and success for McCain. You’d think the Democratic party would have learned from their mistakes over the past 8 years - but no, they haven’t. What I would absolutely love to see on this year’s ticket would be Clinton for President, and Edwards for Vice President - hell, I’d even go for Obama as VP, especially since that would for sure lock in the vote. Obama isn’t ready to be President, and I think the states he’s won show that he’s not as electable as the fervor surrounding him would like you to think he is.

What kills me the most is when people say “we’re so fucked if Hillary gets the nom.” But, wait, really, are we? She can carry the big states, and if she selects her Vice President carefully, she can get the vote - she already has - without tht much more effort. Barack hasn’t put up a strong showing in any of the states with the most electoral votes. What does that have to say about this strength as a candidate?

Of course, none of this matters to anyone reading this blog, because I’m sure most of you are already for Hillary.

Clinton 2008. Obama 2016. That’s my new platform.

With Hillary winning last night’s primary in Pennsylvania, I think the naysayers who told Hillary to leave the race should be feeling a little more than stupid right now. While I’m sure their decision to ask her to remove herself from the race was based on their opinion that Barack is a better candidate, I feel it’s unfair (and immature) to ask someone to remove themself from a Democratic process just because you don’t like them. Maybe there is even a little fear in them asking Hillary to remove herself - maybe, just maybe they’re afraid she might win and that their golden boy will have lost.

Quite frankly, I will get behind whichever candidate is up for the general election in November. I’ve stated time and time again that I prefer Hillary because of my personal political motivations. I understand why some people don’t agree with her politics, but the biggest problem I have with anti-Hillary people is that they dislike her for other reasons not related to her abilities as a candidate or her political opinions.

The bottom line is both Hillary and Barack are not liberal. They are liberals when you compare them to McCain, but they are still both fairly conservative politicians. I know that my dream candidate will never run for president of this country because I am far too liberal and left-wing for enough Americans to get behind a candidate that I can whole-heartedly support, without any reservations.

This election has, without a doubt, put stress on a lot of my friendships. Many people in my age group and in my office are pro-Barack and anti-Hillary - which I think is an important distinction from being a Barack supporter. They are anti-Hillary in that they attack her for reasons that I don’t feel are relevant to her abilities as a potential president of our country. While I accept some things as humor and as attempts at jokes, the problem is, the majority of the negative things said about Hillary aren’t funny: they’re sexist, rude, and downright irrelevant in a presidential election. I have very few negative things to say about Barack, and I feel that they negative things I do have to say are relevant to his abilities as a presidential candidate. I spent a long time reviewing the issues and abilities of each candidate before I made my choice. I am comfortable enough with my choice that I have donated to Hillary’s campaign several times.

While this election is far from over, it is still a competition, it is still a race. There is no clear winner right now, despite the fact that Barack’s camp is using the argument that they have more of the popular vote. That’s the way the Democratic caucuses and primaries work: you can’t blame your party’s procedures for your own lack of a clear victory. I don’t like the winner-take-all mentality behind Republican primaries and the general election: it makes an individual feel like their vote counts less and less.

The bottom line for me, as a Democrat, is that I know we won’t have a candidate until August. And I’m ok with that. I can wait.

Regardless of everything that will happen after today, you have to admit Barack’s “loss” in Pennsylvania despite spending twice what Hillary did makes the victory only a little more important for the Clinton camp.

No, in case you were wondering, this is not ok. In fact, it’s downright embarrassing that a human being would find it acceptable to create and publish this.

There are no words!

I mean, even if you aren’t a Hillary supporter, you have to be able to get behind how ridiculous this is. An article - and a cover, no less - devoted entirely to “Hillaryland’s Fatal Psychodrama”? You’re joking, right? Are we 12?

Larger image here.

Via.

Courtesy of Shakesville, I found an absolutely disgusting story on ABC News today:

Hillary At White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day
Schedules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed

Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.

I have to say that I am completely shocked that ABC would even consider this as news. This story was published to embarrass Senator Clinton, plain and simple. This is not news! In now way, shape, or form is this news! I also like how they call her “Hillary” in the header: almost as if it doesn’t matter that she’s a Senator or a Democratic presidential candidate.

From Shakesville:

Susie Madrak says, “In all my years in journalism, I’ve never seen anything quite as disgusting as this,” while Brad Friedman notes, “A more shameful display of ‘journalism’, we don’t believe we’ve ever seen.”

Meanwhile, Lambert offers dryly: “Some people are of the opinion that misogyny has been pervasive in this campaign. How could they have gotten such a crazy idea?” Indeed.

And it doesn’t matter whether you support Hillary or not; letting the media get away with this tactic against her only legitimizes and tacitly encourages it, which means they’ll inevitably use it against everyone.

You can contact Brian Ross of ABC (the genius behind this spectacular piece) and the Executive VP of ABC News Dave Davis from the information Susie Madrak has here. Make sure to be concise, polite, and to the point in any messages you send their way. We don’t want to stoop to their level!

You can also check our more at Salon, Gina Cobb, Feministe, Slate, Glenn Greenwald, and probably dozens more.