huh? is this really happening?

Can this be true?

McCain has chosen a woman running mate?

And does this mean the Republican party is actually hinging their presidential chances on wooing disgruntled Hillary supporters with this choice? The Hillary conservatives hate so much?






The Hillary they said shouldn't be president because Americans won't want to watch a woman age?




Will Rush question whether a former beauty pageant contestant is likely to be even more distressed by her deteriorating looks?

Election politics, if nothing else, are amusing.

steel thighs, bad skin and hag hand

I went to Huffington Post the other night to read my favorite author and now political contributor, Erica Jong. She was talking about her disappointment that Hillary lost, lamenting the role sexism played in bringing Hillary down:

"I want to believe that America has moved beyond violence and racism and maybe we have. But I thought we had moved beyond sexism, and this campaign proved me wrong. The petty woman-hating jibes, the ageism, and the physical mockery have not been easy to watch."

Meanwhile, as I'm reading this, out of the corner of my eye I see the right hand panel of the Huffington screen -- a picture of the face of a woman with unsightly skin. I think it must be a meth addict. I scroll over and discover it is Amy Winehouse. The article talks about Winehouse showing up at her husband's court hearing (he's been in jail) but its about her bad skin . I hadn't heard any updates on Winehouse since the news of her going into rehab (maybe it IS the skin of a meth addict) so I was curious. The article talks a little bit about the court hearing but mostly it's an excuse to show everybody how ugly her skin is and how she's trying to cover it with make up. It bothered me. The woman is coping with her husband in jail and she gets close-ups of her bad skin splattered all over cyberspace. Nice.

Then a little later that same night I was following some other link and stumbled on a blog post entitled, Hag Hand. Its a picture of Sarah Jessica Parker's hand looking old and wrinkly as she reaches to sign an autograph. What is the universe trying to say?

These last two examples are entertainers, of course. But it happens to politically powerful women often enough. Too often for coincidence according to communications researcher Erika Falk, PhD in her book, Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns.

In particular support of Jong's Hillary point, ABC News asked, Is Clinton Scrutinized About Her Looks Too Much? back in January.

And who can forget Katherine Harris? The media had a field day skewering her makeup in the 2000 Florida election debacle.

The media's double standard in focusing on Harris and other prominent women's appearance was noted by Caryl Rivers, contributer at Women's e News who notes that "men can look like unmade beds and that fact goes unmentioned, while the bodies, hair and makeup of women receive intense scrutiny."

So I certainly agree that sexism is alive and well, undeniably where physical appearance is concerned, and particularly salient in election politics, which matters.

.

The underlying message to women is "if you're not attractive, you have no worth." Or, "we'll keep you in your place one way or the other" and focusing on physical attractiveness (or the lack of) is one way to maintain the status quo of male power.

jong rings the gong

On Obama.

Erica Jong has long been a favorite fiction writer (Fear of Flying) and more recently, non-fiction (Fear of Fifty). I'm thrilled that she's writing political pieces on Huffington Post. A Hillary Clinton supporter like myself, she captures some of my cynical sentiments about the primary race, here.

I plan to rally behind Obama when, presumably, he is chosen as the official democratic candidate. I believe he has excellent political instincts and moving oratory skills. But he's fairly untested in the large scale arena and that's a worry during such challenging economic and international times and a curiosity that he would win more favor among voters.

hillary and the nonconvertible truth

I heard her apology the other night on the televised Philadephia debate. Which was good of her to offer and I accept it readily. Because I know that as years go by, the details get a little fuzzy. And generally, we like to reminisce about things in a way that improves the story.

I've been thinking about this from the start of this Bosnia Blunder. A recent email from a friend illustrates my point perfectly. She was recalling a time when she flew down to visit me from NYC where she lived at the time. We took a long drive out in the Texas Hill Country, winding up in Luckenbach. The place that Waylon Jennings made famous in the song by the same name. Her email said,

"Thinking back on see'n Willie [Nelson] in Luckenbach... Remember we drove Sam's big 'ole convertible?"

Two minor points.

1. The car wasn't a convertible. It was a '57 Ford Fairlane. Here is the actual car, on the very day of our road trip. A cool old car, but not the convertible version. Not as cool as that.


2. We didn't see Willie there, at least not the living, breathing Willie. There is a lot of Willie paraphrenalia about the place, and reverent Willie-talk among the visitors, as it used to be a favorite hangout of his and others in the "progressive country" movement. So we did technically "see" Willie, but didn't see him singing with his guitar (which she was implying in the email, as we were talking about the Stones and other concerts we saw together way back when). We did sit on the grass at Luckenbach, along side the creek, listening to a guitar picking, cowboy-hat-wearing, boots-tucked-into-pants songwriter sing "Down by the Aquiferrrrrrr." Sadly, very much not Willie. Below is a typical day at Luckenbach. Cowboy hats and guitar strumming. But no Willie.

So while Hillary made a major gaffe, I don't think its necessarily a deliberate misconstruance. She very well may have done what my friend did and what I undoubtedly have done myself. Remembering it better than it actually was. Remembering how it could have been, or in Hillary's case, how we feared it might turn out.
I talk a little bit about this on an earlier post about the slippery effects of memory as years go by, here. Eventually, the way you talked about it last time, becomes how you remember it.

as ohio goes

so goes the nation?

A-O Way to Go Ohio!

Its up to you, now, Texas!

will texas vote this clinton to the white house?

With primaries held in March, Texas doesn't often get a chance to help decide presidential contenders. The last time the democratic primaries reached Texas was 1992 when it was the other Clinton who won the most delegates on his way to the White House. But as Austin's Ruth Pennebaker tells us, Texas is Back! And Ohio. And Pennsylvania. Its great to see the democratic process play out in states besides Iowa and New Hampshire (whose entire state population is nearly half that of Houston). Another little known factoid, Texas Democrats get to vote twice in the primaries. Once at the regular primaries and again as a caucus vote. Texas state senate districts that had more overall votes for the last Democratic contender (last election it was John Kerry) get more delegates than districts who, for example, cast more delegate votes for a Republican. So Clinton and Obama are lobbying hard for districts who came out heavily in support of Democrats in recent elections.

But forget Texas for a minute. What's the most exciting thing happening in these primaries is witnessing the hard push for the votes of women, blacks and hispanics. No matter if Clinton or Obama wins, its the minorites who will have played such a big role in getting them there. The minority vote is a force to be reckoned with!

fear of flying?

Today I received an email from yet another feminst friend of mine who is an Obama supporter. Someone whose opinion I value. Someone who I was counting on to vote for Hillary. What is going on? Do some Obamers suffer from a fear of flying? Fear of supporting Hillary Clinton, the woman, argueably the single most qualified candidate in the presidential race? Fear that the conjurers of the right wing spin are right? Fear that she can't possibly win because the Hillary Haters will come out in force on election day but will stay home if Obama is on the ballot? I have considered jumping to the Obama camp for this reason. But if everyone voted out of this kind of fear, we'd continually be nominating not the best qualified candidate, but the least likely to lose. Is that who we want in the highest office?

Maybe Obamers fear that Hillary has drifted too far to the center, strayed from her liberal roots. But center-drift is the necessary evil of building bipartisanshp and a successful career in Washington. It doesn't mean she isn't still striving for significant, progressive change. She's just going about it in the slower, conventional way.

More often, though, I think Obamers are riding on the prospect that this promising and largely untested young senator will catapult above the political fray and be the champion of sweeping changes. I have considered this arguement too. And maybe. I hope so too. But I really doubt it. The same was hoped for Jimmy Carter, newcomer to Washington, and look how his four years turned out. Maybe that's why Obama has so many young supporters. They don't remember Carter's humiliating defeats. They only remember Hillary's humiliating defeats, when the young Clintons-Came-To-Washington and bungled health care reform.

So when I learn that another of my feminist friends are supporting the largely untested, albeit inspiring Obama, I'm first shocked, then disappointed, then sad. Come on! This is Hillary! The no-cookie-baking-no-stand-by-her-man-no-retreat-to-humiliated-oblivion-after-bimbo-chasing-husband-humiliates-me Hillary. Yeah, Obama can make moving speeches, but he hasn't DONE much to earn our trust. Ok, he didn't vote FOR the war in Iraq, but how could he? He wasn't there. He wasn't under the gun. He didn't see the (cherry-picked) intelligence. He and Hillary have voted similarly on Iraq related votes since. He has abstained from tough votes, such as the Iranian-Revolutionary-Guard-as-Terrorist vote, only to later criticize Hillary for hers. Do I smell a weasel?

Back to the feminist vote. Yesterday I read bestselling contemporary author and acclaimed feminist, Erica Jong's opinion piece in the Washington Post supporting Hillary Clinton (read it here). Giant relief. Vindication. Joy! Her finishing arguement tells me this feminist has no fear of flying:

"I understand my hopeful friends who think an Obama button will change America. But I'm sticking with Hillary. I trust her because all her life, her pro bono work has been for mothers and children. And mothers and children -- of all colors -- are the most oppressed group in our country. I trust her to speak for our children and grandchildren -- and for us. She always has. "

Right on, Ms. Jong, and Halleh-zipless-fuck-ing-lulia!