As a Democrat and the "agent of change," the expectations that Barack Obama is committed to do something important on health care are fairly high. Furthermore, in a speech devoted to distinguishing his and John McCain's philosophies and priorities, health care would seem to be, well if not Exhibit A, then at least B or C. Thus, it was hard for a health policy wonk not to be disappointed. Mr. Obama spent less than a minute on health care, about 100 words out of 4,900.
The expectations for Mr. McCain were much lower. He is not running as a leader on domestic policy, and his proposals on health care have been anemic. His proposals do not even aspire to actually fix the broken system. He spoke all of two sentences, less than 50 words of a 4,000 word speech, on health care.
The article itself didn't really rouse much of a response from me, but some of the comments were down-right annoying (like this one and this one). And then, of course a non-US citizen weighed in with: silly Americans, you don't have free health care? Let's not ignore the genius who needs to tell everyone else that they're wrong and he's the only one who knows anything about the US health care system. There's one of those on every blog, right?
I do agree with the mom who's raising a child with a disability. It's regrettable that the health care issue has fallen off the radar. Just like the immigration issue. And the gay rights issue. And the education issue. And the abortion issue. Everything took a backseat to the bailout issue.
. . . when advocates point out that our nation is facing an altogether different kind of crisis, one of soaring hunger and homelessness, and that a large-scale bailout is needed to prevent social service providers nationwide from buckling under the increasing load, we are told that the money these agencies need just doesn't exist.
Last December, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that out of 23 major American cities, 80 percent had an increase in people using emergency soup kitchens and food pantries and 43 percent had an increase in the number of homeless children. All that happened between November 2006 and November 2007.
How did the federal government respond? It didn't.
Americans across the country have failed to respond as well. One food bank in Boston experienced a 23.8 percent decrease in food donations between 2006 and 2007. In 2001, a Salvation Army organization threatened to close soup kitchens for tens of thousands of New York's homeless and walk away from other projects if the city of New York extended health benefits to same-sex couples. Feedin' the homeless wasn't their biggest concern; religious righteousness was more important.
Before 9/11, one in five New Yorkers were getting emergency food aid: 1.5 million residents were already relying on soup kitchens and food pantries. In December 2007, Sherrod Brown stated "food banks in Ohio, in Montana, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, New York, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Rhode Island and in every State of the Union are underfunded and overextended." And what did the government do? Nothing. What did we do? Nothing.
My grandmother always said that people don't respond to an economic crisis unless it's their own. She's right. Twitters are tweetin' and bitchin' away about the failed bailout bill because it will affect their own pocketbooks. Very few of us have shown concern for the millions of Americans who have been suffering through their own economic crisis for years.
I've been listening to all the commentary regarding the failed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/bailout bill (full text available here). There's a lot of finger pointing (on both sides) about who's to blame because the bill was rejected. Liberals are saying Republicans are to blame because they got their feelings hurt and voted "no" out of spite. Conservatives are saying Democrats are to blame - because we can't control Pitbull Pelosi. Also, liberals are saying if 13 more Republicans had set their personal feelings aside and thought about the country first, the bill would've passed. But, I want to play devil's advocate for a few minutes. My fellow liberal bloggers will surely shun me for awhile. (Pfft! Like I care.)
I'm looking at the final numbers and I see this:
Democrats who voted YES - 140
Democrats who voted NO - 95
Republicans who voted YES - 65
Republicans who voted NO - 133
Yes, if 13 more Republicans had voted "yes," the bill would have passed. But, if 13 of the 95 Democrats who voted "no" would have voted "yes," the bill would have passed.
Let's all remember that this was initially a Republican-backed initiative. The final vote suggests otherwise. How did a Republican-backed initiative fail so pathetically with a majority of the House Republicans?
Krugman's article suggests (very subtly) that we are choosing the lesser of two evils on November 4, 2008. He trusts that Obama will be best for the economy, yet he says "it's a shame that [Obama] didn't show more leadership in the debate over the bailout bill."
Even though Krugman was a bit disappointed in how Obama addressed the bailoit during the debate, he still trusts Obama more than McCain and says, "Barack Obama seems well informed and sensible about matters economic and financial. John McCain, on the other hand, scares me."
Krugman goes on to explain why he's afraid of McCain:
The real revelation of the last few weeks, however, has been just how erratic Mr. McCain's views on economics are. At any given moment, he seems to have very strong opinions - but a few days later, he goes off in a completely different direction.
Thus on Sept. 15 he declared - for at least the 18th time this year - that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." This was the day after Lehman failed and Merrill Lynch was taken over, and the financial crisis entered a new, even more dangerous stage.
But three days later he declared that America's financial markets have become a "casino," and said that he'd fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission - which, by the way, isn't in the president's power.
That's what Obama should have said during the debate. But he didn't. Maybe Obama should hire Krugman on as a financial adviser WHEN (not IF) he wins the election.
white Americans are being viewed as racists (which they are) for not supporting Barack Obama because he's an African American with the allegation that blacks in America are just as racist for their overwhelming support of him.
One thing these right wing hypocrites fail to mention is the fact that African Americans have....for the most part...ALWAYS supported the Democratic party over the Republican party
Any white American who withholds support for Obama simply because he's Black is indeed a racist. And, any Black American who supports him just because he's Black is also a racist (because you're not supporting the white guy just because he's not Black).
I was one of very few Black bloggers who did not support Obama during the primaries. I actually backed John Edwards. Once he withdrew, I threw my support to Obama. At the time, I was more confident in John Edwards. As the election season has progressed, I've become more confident in Obama's experience - and I'm scared shitless about the possibility of a Bush/McCain/Palin win this November.
I agree with my fellow tweeter when she says that Blacks have traditionally thrown their support to Democrats - a shit load of white boys - for decades. That was fine though, right? Because the little people (the Black folks) were being used to prop up the big boys (the white folks). Once the little people started supporting each other, all hell broke loose and the racist innuendos began. I know why the white folks are calling Black Obama supporters racists. They can't have us messin' up a socioeconomic system that's worked extremely well for them for decades. That's just tragic.
During a Senate hearing on Thursday, Rep. Michele Bachmann pinned blame for financial crisis on President Clinton, "blacks," and "other minorities." To make her point, she read from an article written by Terry Jones in the right-wing publication Investor's Business Daily. Jones criticized the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and said Clinton was misguided for pushing "homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class." Watch Bachmann's speech, followed by sharp criticism from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) here.
If I understand Bachmann correctly, she's stating that Blacks and minorities should have remained renters forever - because it's what's best for the country. I don't think that's what John Kennedy meant when he said, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." He never meant for any citizen to remain banished to the lower class just so another citizen (the white one) can prosper.
Bachmann's statement suggests the following:
1. The only people who are having trouble paying their mortgage are Blacks and minorities.
2. White heterosexuals are the only ones who pay their bills on time.
3. Homeownership should be reserved for white heterosexual males and white heterosexual females. (*Note: technically, white women are not considered minorities in the US.)
4. Blacks and minorities should remain in the lower class, unless they can find a means other than homeownership to move them forward.
I'm really hoping that all the Blacks and minorities in Minnesota make it clear that even if Bachmann wants them to sit firmly in the lower class, they can still exercise their right to vote since that's NOT reserved for the middle class. Vote that bitch right out the door.
We're trying to learn to use a new service called CoverIt Live. We'll "live-blog" our evening as a test-run. Forgive us for the random sillyness you may experience.
A couple of gay news items caught my eye this afternoon.
- Rosie O'Donnell commented on the recent news that Clay Aiken has come out the closet. Rosie said, "I love Clay . . . he is a beautiful man in every way." Aww, that comment was much nicer than what she's said about other people.
- Looks like Gary Reid, a conservative gay politician in Canada, put his foot in his mouth when he said, "What I found them [gays] to tolerate is promoting promiscuity, drug usage and prostitution."
Oh.no.he.didn't.
Reid has closed down his blog (and resigned from the race, ha!), but you can still see cached copies of his blog by googling the url Conservativeandgay.blogspot.com. Wow. Someone was bold enough to make a rather self-loathing statement, but too scared to stand by that statement? I won't call him a pansy; that's just offensive to my brave gay brothers.
Looks like we at SistersTalk weren't the only bloggers pounding away at our keyboard during the debate.
A quick call for other debate bloggers resulted in the following:
Barefoot and Progressive:
Whatever McCain gained by attacking, Obama made up for by staying poised, sounding smart and naming all the names, countries, leaders, etc....
Newshoggers.com:. . . Barack
Obama put himself firmly in the Democratic hawk tradition. Other than the Iraq withdrawal - to which he's too
firmly committed to backtrack - and the "negotiate with our enemies" which is standard Democratic fare even for hawks, he took a decidely belligerent line . . .
The Mahablog: . . .
Good; make connection between $10 billion/month in Iraq and lack of money for domestic needs.
McCain is trying to connect Obama to Bush?
Mark Nickolas:
Kind of remarkable to me that the McCain camp has so little faith in Sarah Palin that they're not having her do any satellite interview/spin like Joe Biden is doing. Incredible, isn't it? They can't even rely on her on debate night. All she's able to do is cheerlead for the GOP base.
Taylor Marsh: Goal for McCain: To look like he isn't 72 years old, while also not sounding condescending to Obama, while trying to pull a Reagan, which means not holding Obama's youth and experience against him, as Reagan once said.
HorsesAss.org: . . . he didn't quite say it this time, but every time I hear McCain warn against putting our health care in the hands of "government bureaucrats," I have to point out that it is already in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats.
ePluribus Media: It could be me and just six million Welsh sheep talking among ourselves at 2.00 am in the morning, idiosyncratically expounding about something we know very little. Well, John McCain will do it tonight as well, so why not me?
(not sure it this is a liberal, but thought the post was worth a mention) ReadWriteWeb: Tweets were repeated and browsers had to be refreshed but it was a very engaging experience. It was a debate unlike any other in the history of the world. It was much better than watching it on TV.
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
Moderator asked: Do you think there's the possibility of another 911 attack?
McCain: We have a safer nation. Less likely now than before 911. And then the long-winded sentences began. Blah.
Blah. Blah. We have to make sure we have trained interrogators so we don't ever torture a prisoner again (so he admits we tortured
prisoners?). He can tell us that America is safer today. We've had the largest reorganization of government, but we still
have a long ways to go. Made another attempt to make Obama appear young an inexperienced, "Senator Obama doesn't understand . . . " Oh, there's
the appeal to American patriotism again. He apparently loves veterans -- a lot. I do mean a lot. Ouch! Says he doesn't
need "on the job" training. And finally, he talks about his ordeal in prison. Did he save that as his encore?
Obama: says we're safer in some ways. Billions dumped into airport security. But we haven't done enough. We need missle defense.
We can't just focus on Iraq. We have to go to the root cause. We have to understand that the way we are
perceived in the world will make a difference. Wants to
restore America's respect in other's eyes. Gave credit to McCain on the addressing the torture issue.
Explained where
he got his name (his father's travels).
End of debate. My opinion: Obama kicked McCain's ass. He appeared more prepared to really answer the question. He used less rhetoric and really
tried to engage the viewer -- for the most part. Obama looked at McCain a lot more than McCain looked at Obama. He seemed to be focusing on a safe person in the audience (common public speaking tactic for scaredy cats).
McCain spent a lot of time trying to make Obama look too inexperienced to lead, but Obama brought his A game and never skipped a beat.
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
Moderator posed the question: What is your reading of the threat from Iran on the security of the US?
McCain: We cannot allow a second Holocaust. Blabbed on about the Russians.
More rhetoric. More rhetoric. Pose sanctions on the Iranians. Believes that with the French
(doesn't Bush hate the French?),
the British and Germans, we can deal with the Iranians.
They're a serious threat. Says we can act with our friends and allies to reduce
the threat. Blah. Blah. Blah. History lesson provided (no time to fact check). Says Obama wants to meet with enemies without
preconditions. Says you need preconditions or you legitimize terrorism.
Obama: Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy, now Iran's strength has grown because of the war in Iraq.
Basically, it's Bush's fault. We need tougher sanctions. We need cooperation from Russia and China
(even if they're not Democracies) and others that have extensive trade with Iran. Will meet with anyone to talk if he thinks it will keep America safe.
Says he would never tell people "until you decide to do what we say, we won't meet with you."
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8
Moderator posed the question: Send more troops to Afghanistan. How many? When?
Obama: Yes. And as soon as possible. We cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq.
Send 2 or 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan.
We have 4 times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan, yet they are a bigger threat to US.
Press Afghanistan government to make sure they're workng for their people. We also have to deal with the Taliban. Says we've
lost legitimacy in Afghanistan and Al Quaeda is more powerful than ever. Told McCain he has a bracelet from the mother of a war vet too. Says we took our eye off the people responsible for 911. Says McCain has NOT beed consistently concerned with Afghanistan. We have to take Afghanistan and Taliban seriously.
McCain: We drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. Not prepared to cut off aid to Pakistan.
We need cooperation of people
in that area. McCain seems to have lots of faith in General Patrais. Stall. Stall. Stall.
Some mention of Ronald Reagan (nice patriotic move *puke*). Says he supported the first Gulf War although a number of his colleagues
were against it. Mentions Somalia. Ethnic genocide. National security issues.
And something about his "record" and experience. And one more attempt at appealing to the true patriot in you. Bragged about the bracelet he received from a mother of a war vet. Brags about his travels to Afghanistan and claims his travels means he's more concerned than Obama.
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
Moderator posed the question: Is there a fundamental difference of how you (each candidate) would lead the country out of this crisis?
McCain: Change governmental spending. (Just made a jab at Enron execs.)
Says there's too much money on outrageous spending bills.
Claims he's the only one fighting against wasteful earmark spending.
Claims Obama has shifted too much on the energy bill. Says we're winning in Iraq. (are we, really?) Says next president has to decide how and when we leave Iraq. Trying to appeal to your sense of patriotism. Says Obama refuses to believe we're winning in Iraq although it's clear to HIM that Iraq is better off. Says Iraq has peace and prosperity.
Obama: Said lobbyists and special interests are the ones introducing outrageous spending bills.
Says McCain extended $300b in tax cuts to the some of the wealthiest people in America and
CEOs are getting $700K in reduced taxes. Grow the economy from the ground up. tax cut for 95% of Americans. Challenged where McCain is getting his facts and figures! Says we're neglecting people who are suffering. Too many loopholes in business taxes (at the support of McCain).
Says McCain doesn't want to close loopholes, he wants to add more taxes. Says McCain wants to tax health benefits. Called out McCain saying her supported Bush over 95% of the time yet he's talking about how we're in too much debt to other countries. Says we should ask ourselves if we should have gone into war in the first place; we didn't ask enough questions and we hadn't even caught Bin Laden yet. We've epent over $600B, lost over 1+K lives, and still spending millions to finance the war. Says we have to use military wisely. Made a jab at Palin by saying he's very happy with HIS VP c candiate of choice.
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
Moderator posed the question: Is there a fundamental difference of how you (each candidate) would lead the country out of this crisis?
McCain: Change governmental spending. (Just made a jab at Enron execs.)
Says there's too much money on outrageous spending bills.
Claims he's the only one fighting against wasteful earmark spending. Claims Obama has shifted too much on the energy bill.
Obama: Said lobbyists and special interests are the ones introducing outrageous spending bills.
Says McCain extended #300b in tax xuts to the some of the wealthiers people in America.
CEOs getting $700K in reduced taxes. Grow the economy from the ground up. tax cut for 95% of Americans.
Challenged where McCain is getting his facts and figures! Says we're neglecting people who are suffering. Too many loopholes in business taxes (at the support of McCain).
Says McCain doesn't to close loopholes, he wants to add more taxes. Says McCain wants to tax health benefits.
------ see also: our twitter updates during the debate:
1,
2,
3,
4,
They've prefaced the debate with, "they've had so little preparation time." What's that mean exactly?
Not enough time to prepare false statements?
What's with the 9 minute delay rule? My boss doesn't allow me a 9 minute delay to answer his questions.
Foreign policy and national security are the main topics tonight. No cheers or applause allowed.
First question: where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
Obama: Some of what O said is . . . we're at a defining moment in history, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. . . Have to move swiftly, wisely.
Must have oversight. Taxpayers must have possibility of getting money back when market returns. NOne of the money goes to golden parachutes. And we must help
homeowners. Says current economy is a final verdict of 8 years of Bush rule. Never stated he supports the financial recover plan.
Wants more details before he agrees. States he saw this financial crisis coming.
Says Washingtom only cares about what's good for wall street, not mainstream.
McCain: Started with a sympathy note. Stall. Stall. Stall. Sent well-wishes to Kennedy.
Said something about not feeling well. Stall. Stall. Stall. Calls it the greatest fiscal crisis of our time, but never called it a recession.
Says he's been around "a long time." Yes, we know that, old man. Wants to create jobs, but never really gave a clear
answer about recovery plan. McCain says he also warned this financial crisis was coming. Stall. Stall. Stall.
Claims his administration would hold people accountable.
We're live-blogging the debate (#debate08) tonight using short, to-the-point, twitter-like notes that will seem a bit random to those of you who aren't twitter addicts yet.
We're still anxiously awaiting the beginning of the debate. My bloggin' buddy is watching icarly to pass the time. I just made another dish of pollo pecano (and a Bacardi and Diet) to ease my nerves. It's the first time we've done this. Be gentle.
Subsequent posts will include links to previous ST posts on this topic, in addition to links to any twitter updates we might have made. Let the debate begin.
------
other ST posts for this debate: debate post 1,
debate post 2,
debate post 3,
debate post 4,
debate post 5,
debate post 6,
debate post 7
This week the Women's Campaign Forum (WCF) announced in an email to members and supporters their Voices for Choice contest. The contest, the first of its kind at WCF, allows for members and supporters to choose which pro-choice woman candidate will receive a $3,000 contribution from WCF PAC. Votes can be made on the contest web page by making a contribution to the candidate of choice. Candidates receive one vote for every dollar contributed. The candidate with the most votes by the contest deadline, October 7, will receive the $3,000 contribution from WCF PAC.
The Voices for Choice contest includes five pro-choice women candidates: Sam Bennett (D-PA), Christine Jennings (D-FL), Betsy Markey (D-CO), Dina Titus (D-NV), and Vic Wulsin (D-OH). The Women's Campaign Forum is excited to offer members and supporters the opportunity to cast votes for these great pro-choice women and looks forward to generating enthusiasm for their candidacies.
I finally checked my snail mail for the day to find a notice from the state of Wisconsin. It states:
A new federal law, the Deficit Reduction Act, requires that child support recipients pay an annual fee of $25 to be deducted from support payments after they receive $500.00 in support for the federal fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). This fee will be used to pay the costs of the child support program.
That's just fuckin' bullshit. Child support payers are also paying a yearly fee of $65. Since the payer is paying a fee, why does the recipient of child support have to also pay a fee?
A $25 fee isn't a lot, but for those mothers (and some fathers) who aren't receiving much child support to begin with, that's just highway robbery. My exhusband has a full time job with the VA office and he's a Navy reservist. He pays me $50 a week (for 2 kids). And the feds want me to pay them a $25 annual fee, in addition to the $65 annual fee they receive from my ex?
Bush claims that the Deficit Reduction Act "leaves more money in the hands of the American people." Umm, does it really?
I'm guessing there's millions of parents who are receiving and paying child support, which means the feds will collect billions of dollars from us. I certainly fuckin' hope those rat bastards aren't sending our money to Iraq.
Is that Bush's grand plan to fix our financial crisis right here in the US? It almost makes sense. Why not take advantage of a 50% divorce rate that's resulted in a whole lot of child support payments?
CNN's Campbell Brown had a lot to say about the GOP, sexism and Sarah Palin.
Note the sign in the background that says "Free Sarah Palin." She doesn't look very trapped to me. Let's not treat her like she's a battered wife who can't run away from her oppressor.
A person of average intelligence would be just as confused as I am by today's announcement that McCain is asking to postpone Friday's debate so he can work on the country's financial crisis. Here's why I'm confused, just a tad . . .
Shouldn't that be GW's top priority? I mean, he IS the current reigning Mr. USA. And, umm, does this mean the GOP is finally admitting we're in a recession? For awhile, Bush has been denying, denying, and denying this fact.
Of course, any good conspiracy theorist would state that McCain's desire to postpone Friday's debate is nothing more than political positioning. The man needs more coaching before he can look even remotely intelligent sitting next to Obama.
One of my MySpace friends added this video to his bulletin updates. Can't believe I missed it.
I've always said that not all Black people will support Obama's bid for the White House. In my experience, I've noticed that Black people are usually the LAST ones to congratulate me when I've done well, but the first to claim I must have done something unethical if I've actually succeeded at something. I know, it's a nasty generalization, but it's what I've learned growing up with a family like mine.
This video shows a small (very small) group of Blacks heckling Obama and holding up KKK signs:
I wonder if these people were paid by the McCain/Palin camp to do this. It's like they're trying to say, "If his own people don't want him, why should the rest of us want him?"
I think I spent hours pokin' around on the web yesterday looking for easy ways to add my Twitter updates to my blog's sidebar. I tried the steps Twitter suggests, but I wasn't happy with the layout and I couldn't figure out how to tweak the CSS to my liking. The Twitter code kept throwing all my blog posts all over the place. Yikes!
Finally, I figured it out. I decided to use my Twitter RSS feed and add my updates that way. Here are the steps:
1. Find your RSS feed link by viewing your Twitter page then scrolling to the bottom of the page.
2. Copy your RSS feed link to your clipboard.
3. Go to BlogHarbor.com and find the RSS Javascript Generator.
4. Complete the form provided.
5. Generate your unique javascript code.
6. Copy and paste the code to your blog
You can decide how many of your updates you want to show up in your sidebar. The best part about this code is that the CSS will look just like your blog's CSS.
There's new hope for English majors. They no longer have to worry about flippin' burgers after graduation. The GOP will hire them to do ghost writing. I'm assuming an A in Creative Writing (or Rhetoric) is the only qualification.
While surfin' the blogosphere and catchin' up with the latest political news, I found this article about McCain using a ghost writer to write letters to the editor.
Among the letters Oostveen says she wrote is one in which she pretended to be the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq.
Salon requested documentary proof from Oostveen. Below, on Page 1, is a redacted e-mail from a McCain staffer to Oostveen about letter writing, as well as the sample letter that was attached to it. The sample was meant to be an example of a "good letter to the editor that concentrates on our support for Gov. Palin."
I have to laugh here. Sarah Palin needs phoney letters to the editor to make her look good? I guess her unwed, pregnant, teenage daughter isn't helping her win enough browine points? And neither is that hot body of hers (yep, I went there!).
Apparently, this ghost writer doesn't choose her clients along party lines - everybody's money is good to her. She says:
I volunteer in political campaigns now and then. After a series of outings for Obama and a first mission as a phone banker for John McCain, I returned to McCain's headquarters in Arlington, Va. The offer was too alluring to delay -- they wanted to put me into action as a ghostwriter.
So, what did she do for the Obama camp exactly? Hmmm . . .
I'm a marketing professional and I understand the importance of "word-of-mouth" advertising, but come on folks; this is completely unethical.
Today's post is influenced by a bulletin I saw on MySpace today. While logging in to retrieve that bulletin, I was distracted by MySpace's latest tacky background.
I found the bulletin. The Lesbian Lifestyle asked us to participate in a discussion about lesbians and abortion. I jumped to the site, but I couldn't find the discussion. We've covered this issue before on SistersTalk, but it's been soooo damn long that I can't find the original posting. You know what that means? Means it's time to revisit the issue.
Some of you might be thinking, "Why would a lesbian give two shits about abortion? Isn't that kinda ironic?" This lesbian cares, but I always carefully craft my response to the worn-out question "Are you pro-abortion or pro-life?" That's a leading question because being pro-choice (as I am) doesn't mean you're pro-abortion.
McCain's leading lady says she opposes abortion, even if her own daughter was raped. Umm, notice she didn't say she would oppose if she herself was raped. What does that imply?
I support a woman's right to choose, regardless of the circumstances, even though I don't believe I would ever have an abortion myself. It's my right to choose not to, and it's another woman's right to choose otherwise.
I was cruisin' the Craigslist boards and I saw a post written by a lesbian who wants to come out, but she's afraid she will be ostracized by the lesbian community because she's very conservative and anti-abortion. In my opinion, she's making a huge assumption that all lesbians are hippie, tree-lovin, feminist pro-choicers. That assumption is incorrect. I'm not a hippe; I don't hug trees (I barely remember to recycle my pop cans); and I have too low of a tolerance for pushover, passive-type women to be considered a feminist - but I am indeed pro-choice.
Something to ponder: is it possible to be both a liberal lesbian AND anti-abortion?
I've had very little to say about election '08, mostly because I'm not really happy with either party's frontrunner. But, I just received an email from our fearless leader over at The Liberal Blog Advertising Network. The question we've been asked to ponder is:
. . . apparently the blogger there has become a McCain/Palin supporter, in the aftermath of Hillary's defeat.
Should this blog, based on our rules and guidelines, remain a member of the Advertise Liberally group . . .
My knee jerk response was, "Screw that trader! Kick her out our scared liberals group!"
I can hear my friends saying, "Slow yo' roll, Genia. Is McCain really a conservative? Or, is he a liberal in sheep's clothing?" Ken, the most conservative, anti-liberal, gay man I have ever met says McCain is a "fuckin' liberal" and he passionately protested McCain's successful bid for the GOP ticket.
McCain's degree of conservatism isn't the issue we're debating. What we're trying to decide is whether or not the publisher of
TENNESSEE GUERILLA WOMEN can officially call herself a liberal blogger after throwing her support to McCain/Palin because she's pissed Hillary (a female) isn't the Democratic frontrunner.
Let me make it clear: I never wanted Hillary to secure the Democratic ticket, and yet, I am indeed a liberal blogger. I wasn't (and I'm still not) very happy with Obama. But, I will support his candidacy because he successfully snagged the Democratic nomination (plus, I just really, really dislike the GOP). Yeah, I'm excited that we're finally making history with election '08; we'll absolutely (without a doubt) see a historical change in the White House, even if it's on a superficial level. But, I would never throw my support to McCain just because he has a Vanna White by his side. And we all know Palin is a Vanna White - she's not meant to say much, just stand there and look pretty. No, that wasn't a sexist comment because I'm a female and I can say such things. But, Obama can't say that 'cuz he's a dude.
Anywho, the rules of the Liberal Blog Advertising network state:
The blog must be overtly liberal / progressive in political orientation. Mixed websites that features writers on the left and the right are not allowed in. There are no exceptions to this rule.
So, based on the rules, yep, this liberal trader should be booted from the network. But . . . what does progressive really mean? Is a liberal who jumps ship to support McCain just because his VP candidate is female considered a progressive thinker? I would say that's the epitamy of progressive thinking by definition:
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor
Palin is a female. A female in the White House (doin' somethin' other than givin' away blow-jobs) is a huge change -- hell, it's definitely an improvement! Supporting a McCain/Palin victory seems to be a definitive opposition to the status quo.
With that said, I believe we should let TENNESSEE GUERILLA WOMEN remain a member of the liberal bloggers network. She can't help it if her lifelong dream is to see a female in the White House; I blame the feminist movement for that.
Wow! I was on Twitter and noticed one of my "