Recently in Election Category

I have a piece up at TAP:

Palin's addition to the ticket takes Republican faux-feminism to a whole new level. As Adam Serwer pointed out on TAPPED, this is in fact a condescending move by the GOP. It plays to the assumption that disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters did not care about her politics -- only her gender. In picking Palin, Republicans are lending credence to the sexist assumption that women voters are too stupid to investigate or care about the issues, and merely want to vote for someone who looks like them. As Serwer noted, it's akin to choosing Alan Keyes in an attempt to compete with Obama for votes from black Americans.

[...]

It's clear that Republicans believe that what made Hillary Clinton such a good candidate was her gender, not her political experience or positions on the issues. And McCain's decision to pick Palin shows he took this message to heart and chose to add her to the ticket primarily because of her gender. In so doing, McCain has turned the idea of the first woman in the White House from a true moment of change to an empty pander.

Why is this a pander? Because Palin is not a woman who has a record of representing women's interests. She is beloved by extremely right-wing conservatives for her anti-choice record (fittingly, she's a member of the faux-feminist anti-choice group Feminists for Life). Palin supports federal anti-gay marriage legislation. She believes schools should teach creationism. Alaska is currently considering spending more on abstinence-only sex education. And when it comes to a slew of other issues of importance to women, such as equal pay, she's not on the record.

Read the rest here. I'll be discussing the article (and debating this woman) on CNN tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern.

More from other bloggers after the jump...

As we noted over and over throughout the Democratic primary, it's important to decry sexism against women in politics even if you don't agree with them on the issues or endorse their candidacy. With that we're depressed to note that the sexist bullshit against Republican VP pick Sarah Palin is cropping up so soon:

C'mon. Criticize her on the basis of her political record or experience. Don't make it about looks.

(For those who don't get the "joke," this should explain it.)

UPDATE: And Jill points out another incident, too.

Trigger warning : This is very upsetting. At the convention, a CodePink protester was knocked down by a policeman saying (you can hear him in the video): "Back it up, bitch."

So McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She's young -- 44 -- and a self-described "hockey mom." Because Palin is relatively unknown on the national level (she's been governor since 2006, and before that was mayor of a town of 8,000 people), a lot of people are already identifying this as a ploy to snag the votes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. I don't know whether that's true (my guess is yes), but it's my sense that Hillary backers who don't like Obama are not going to like a McCain/Palin ticket much better.

Let me say right off the bat that, overall, I think it's great that Republicans have chosen to elevate a woman to this level -- no matter what their motivations. I want to see more women of all parties involved in politics. But, as we stated over and over in the primaries, a politician's gender isn't everything. It's merely one factor to be considered. And quite frankly, Palin's political views suck.

First up, she's super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down's syndrome.) She's against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she "has gay friends." Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She's also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Plus, she's embroiled in a scandal:

But Palin's seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.

As Vanessa blogged last month, Bill Kristol was claiming McCain would pick Palin -- and that would prove that Republicans are "much more open to strong women." Frankly, that's bullshit. Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

More to come later... Any Alaskans out there who know a bit more about her? What do the rest of you think?

UPDATE: My colleague Adam over at TAP makes some great points:

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it's equally sexist. Palin is essentially a hard right ideologue, and therefore nothing like Hillary as far as substance is concerned. It's not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004. The conservative media reaction has already engaged in paternalistic language, with FOX News reporting on television that "McCain broke the glass ceiling," implying in fact, that the pick had nothing to do with Palin or her qualifications, but merely her gender. It's fitting that the party positing affirmative action as a program that picks people exclusively based on race or gender rather than qualification should do something similar given an opportunity for political advancement. While Obama is promising change through policy, not simply through the circumstances of his birth, the McCain campaign thinks his appeal is simply visual and demographic, and therefore something they can exploit.

UPDATE II: Bilerico has more on her record on LGBT issues.

Here it is! After the fabulous Feministing happy hour - where we got to talk to activists, readers and regular commenters like TheSoyMilkConspiracy and Thomas - we headed over to NARAL NY's watch party. It was amazing to get to watch this incredible speech with such a great group of people. Awesome night.

This is a great question to keep asking John McCain and other anti-choicers:

Related:
Reclaiming the abortion debate
How much jail time should women get for having an abortion?
Thompson gives her jail time
McCain's long and ugly record on choice
More on McCain's dismal record on choice
McCain: Contra-contraception

Have at it, folks...

Ann gave you a serious run-down on Biden already, but I just wanted to highlight this piece from Jonathan Cohn at TNR on the silence in the mainstream media and beyond about Biden's role in drafting and passing the Violence Against Woman Act.

We've posted in detail about McCain's horrible history (and potential future) with reproductive justice issues. But there's always need for more reminders.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate says McCain is trying to "pull a Jessica Seinfeld."

So the candidate is doing exactly what Mrs. Jerry Seinfeld did in her popular cookbook, Deceptively Delicious. He's sneaking a little of his bad-tasting reproductive rights stance into the meatloaf of his candidacy--not by hiding it, but by trading on his reputation as a maverick. Seinfeld's contention was that if your kids don't like asparagus, you should just whirl it up in the blender and bake it into some meatloaf. The children won't know the difference until it's too late.

Make sure to check out the whole piece. Even if it doesn't tell you anything you don't know about McCain and choice, it will make you hungry for meatloaf. (Okay, that's probably just me. But seriously, read it.)

Here's my fave part.

What does everyone think?

Aside from the applause line about fighting for women's rights and gay rights, I'd say her "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits" was a pretty great turn of phrase. I'm also glad she's recognizing Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

And ooooh, loved that line about McCain and Bush being "awfully hard to tell apart."

Also, did anyone catch Lilly Ledbetter's speech earlier tonight? I missed it...

Related: Babble snagged an interview with her - jealous!

Anyone watching? Thoughts?

We've cautioned before that "women voters" are not a monolithic bloc that can be won over with a single message. But as the economic downturn has hit women especially hard, it's easy to see why Barack Obama is trying to appeal to women by discussing the economy -- hitting on the issue of equal pay and highlighting Lilly Ledbetter's story.

Obama was an original co-sponsor of the legislation to reverse the result in Ledbetter's case; McCain opposes the bill because, he said in April, it "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." Well, yes, that would be the point of a law prohibiting pay discrimination.

The Obama campaign has asked Clinton to talk about Ledbetter when she campaigns for him. Obama, who didn't focus much on the issue during the primary campaign, hosted a meeting Monday on pay equity; the campaign released a memo contrasting Obama and McCain on women's issues. As I sat down to write this column, an e-mail arrived from the Democratic convention announcing that Ledbetter would be speaking there.

That's all well and good, but it's worth bringing up that it's tough for even the most impassioned campaign rhetoric to connect with real life. This piece from Salon last week, about a middle-class mother who takes her children to a soup kitchen for the first time, drives that point home. She describes her situation this way:

via Matt, apparently the National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks Madonna represents "the slut vote." (Madonna is speaking out against John McCain on her world tour, which kicked off this weekend.)

Where has K-Lo been for the past decade and a half? Calling Madonna a whore is sooo 1993. (Circa her Sex book, Body of Evidence, and "Human Nature.") If you want to go negative on Madonna, these days it's more appropriate to say she represents the African-baby-snatching constituency.

In light of this ridiculousness, let's enjoy a "slutty"-era Madonna flashback:

"Ooops-- I didn't know I couldn't talk about McCain. Musta been crazy."

Also, I think we should appropriate the term "slut vote." You know -- voters who are in favor of access to contraception and abortion, comprehensive sex education, gay rights etc. etc.

Check out our gal Courtney, along with author and activist Kenyon Farrow, Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute, and Lisa Witter of Fenton Communications, discuss the veepstakes with Laura Flanders. The segment was recorded before Biden was announced, but the panelists have a lot of great insights about what Obama's VP pick means, or should mean:

The snippet of the transcript that's about Biden is below the jump...

It's official: Obama has chosen Joe Biden has his running mate. Not Hillary Clinton. And not the long-shot Kathleen Sebelius.

The few ripples of major news that Biden made during the primary were mostly about his gaffes. As you may recall, he's the one who referred to Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." There's a lot more where that came from, including a 2006 comment that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." As Gina at What About Our Daughters puts it, "Obama Chooses Biden as VP: Because Biden's Bright, Shiny and Clean!"

It might seem silly to "introduce" a guy who's been in Congress almost as long as I've been alive. But if you're anything like me, Biden is one of those people who pops up on your radar every once in awhile (like when he makes one of the aforementioned gaffes), but you haven't paid much attention to him. So, feminists, let's look a little closer at his record...

So, after watching a few of the clips from the Obama and McCain appearance at an evangelist church, I am actually not sure why Obama agreed to doing this. Tactically, it appeared to be on McCain's home court and many have speculated that McCain had even heard the questions before hand while Obama was answering them. That said, I am concerned by the way that Obama answered the question on abortion (and I am not afraid to say it!).

Personally, I think he blew it. Now, I know many liberals have argued otherwise and while I hear the arguments, that Obama is more nuanced in his approach and was obviously playing with the idea of a "higher power," in his answer, I think he should have come out and said point blank, "I believe in the reproductive rights of families and women", instead of pandering to a crowd, he will never win over by trying to cater to their anti-abortion attitudes. It ain't gonna happen, at least not with the evangelists.

I know there is this fear about calling Obama out on his talking points because we don't want to give the right something to run with, but I do think we have to use the media to hold all our politicians accountable, now and after the election. It is clear that Obama's talking points on repro rights need to be fleshed out with regard to a conservative, evangelist audience, since most of us (on the supposed left) know where Obama stands on most issues of reproductive rights. As my coworker Karlos and I discussed on the train ride home from work yesterday, we understand why he couldn't explicitly say, "pro-choice" on the onset. I may not agree with that, but as a frame it is very difficult to push on this crowd. However if he had pushed reproductive rights as a human rights issue within the frame of reproductive justice and the responsibility of the state to protect and provide reproductive health services for everyone, mothers, babies, families, etc and then discussed how abstinence-only sex education has done absolutely nothing for the number of abortions in the last 4 years, it might have positioned him better on this issue.

As feminists we can't be afraid to demand what we want to hear from our politicians regarding abortion. There has been an assault on pro-choice and the language has been co-opted to make it look as though the pro-choice camp doesn't care about families, babies or mommies. And that couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. It is the transparent and documented truth that access to reproductive health for women creates a healthier and happier society, is what motivates us to continue fighting for pro-choice legislation.

No, it's not the Mel Gibson movie. No, it's not some stupid MSN Lifestyle poll. It's a new project called This Is What Women Want, brought to you by Center for New Words (which puts on the awesome WAM conference). They've launched this election-timed project to amplify women's voices.

Tired of being talked about this election season? Done with being represented by skewed polls and stereotypes?

Do you answer those questions with a resounding, hell yes!? Do you identify as a woman? Then click here to submit your own "What I Want."

A sampling of what other women have already expressed desire for...

• More and tougher convictions for rapists
• Universal childcare
• Equal rights for LGBT citizens
• Control of my own body

Read the rest here -- and vote on your favorites!

Former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted to having an extramarital affair. Thoughts?

I just took this screenshot from The New York Times website; it leads to this story from the upcoming magazine about black politics and Obama. Noticeably absent from the picture is anyone with a vagina are any women. Lovely.

(The article isn't much better, save for one quote from Cheryl Contee of Jack and Jill Politics and a quick mention of Valerie Jarrett.)

Hanaa Rifaey doesn't sleep much. I'll let her explain why. But the next time you find yourself pissed at another policy done wrong, know that Hanaa is on it. And you can be, too. Even if it's a small step, it'll add up.

Here's Hanaa...

Ok, so I know we haven't blogged about the latest McCain rape joke news. In case you missed it, McCain allegedly told this joke in 1986:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, "Where is that marvelous ape?"

Classy, huh? McCain's spokesperson at the time denied it, though the reporter who recorded the joke, Norma Coile, said, "I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said. Enough women repeated it to me at the time and the McCain campaign had a non-denial denial."

Yes, the "joke" is appalling. But I think the McCain campaign's response to the joke resurfacing was even worse. A spokesperson defended McCain's humor this way:

"He's long said that he's said and done things in the past that he regrets," Rogers said. "You've just got to move on and be yourself -- that's what people want. They want somebody who's authentic, and this kind of stuff is a good example of McCain being McCain."

I think there are enough examples that we can conclude this is true. Just McCain being McCain.

I highlighted this awful McCain quote in this week's WFR:

I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don't believe in gay adoption.

Wonk Room has the goods on just how extreme McCain's position is. Nearly every child welfare organization in the country opposes adoption bans against gay people (both couples and individuals).

McCain not only expressed his opposition to adoption by "gay couples"-as if that weren't bad enough. He said he wants "both parents" involved and therefore doesn't believe in "gay adoption." This approach rules out adoption by gay individuals-even though these adoptions are permitted in every state except Florida. In fact, it seems to rule out adoption by single heterosexuals too.

So basically only people exactly like John McCain could possibly make loving parents. What a jerk.

Also, given McCain's belief in forced-birth policies, shouldn't he want to encourage adoption, not limit it?

You've probably already seen it in the course of your morning blog reading, but this is the cover of this week's New Yorker:

The artist, Barry Blitt, explained it this way:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

That may be true among the New Yorker's lefty and elite readership. But in large swathes of the country, it's certainly not a given that this image of Obama is "preposterous." In fact, is is a perfect visual summary of what Fox News spews and what right-wing emails allege every day. As Ta-Nehisi puts it, "Expect that image to be on tee-shirts within two weeks."

More at Racialicious, Michelle Obama Watch, What About Our Daughters, Jack and Jill Politics, and Feministe.

UPDATE: Verchiel has contact info for the editors:

webcomments@newyorker.com

themail@newyorker.com

The Mail
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

Related posts:
McCain's awkward silence on birth control coverage
I've got news for Carly Fiorina...
McCain supports wage discrimination
and, from Think Progress: After Voting Against Equal Pay Legislation, McCain Claims He's 'Committed To Equal Pay For Equal Work'

Transcript below the jump.

via Michelle Obama Watch, this video from Brave New Films is a stomach-churning reel of all the vile Fox News clips about Michelle Obama. We've blogged about several of these individual incidents, but it's pretty appalling to see them all put together like this:

Isn't it depressing that the election is still months away and already there are this many examples? Brave New Films has a rundown of what's in the video, and a petition you can sign to tell Fox to stop the racist, sexist smears.

The Women's Media Center has posted some great little clips from the panel I was on a few weeks ago at The Paley Center: From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry, and the Press in the 2008 Election. Patricia Williams is especially amazing. Thanks to my friend Sean for the miso-ginee story.

via Dana, today Obama appeared in New York with Hillary Clinton, and delivered a speech on women and work. He said:

But let's be clear: these issues - equal pay, work/family balance, childcare - these are by no means just women's issues. When a job doesn't offer family leave, that also hurts men who want to help care for a new baby or an ailing parent. When there's no affordable childcare or afterschool programs, that hurts children who wind up in second rate care, or spending afternoons alone in front of the TV. When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by.

So you'd think solving these problems would be one of our highest national priorities. But while some politicians in Washington make a lot of noise about family values, when it comes to what people actually need to support their families, and care for their families, and spend time with their families - they get awfully quiet, don't they? And year after year, it just gets harder for working parents - especially working women - to make a living while raising their kids.

We take it for granted that women are the backbone of our families, but we too often ignore the fact that women are also the backbone of our middle class. And we won't truly have an economy that puts the needs of the middle class first until we ensure that when it comes to pay and benefits at work, women are treated like the equal partners they are.

Despite his recent missteps on choice, Obama also took the opportunity to restate his support for Roe, but in a fairly general way. He didn't address his statements on late-term abortions. (And speaking of those statements, be sure to check out Lynda Waddington's note to Obama about what he should understand before calling for the removal of mental-health exceptions to abortion bans.) Later today Obama will be in Virginia, talking more about women and the economy.

Meanwhile, McCain's attempting to woo the ladies this week, too, with an event planned for tomorrow. I'm guessing he'll take this opportunity to highlight his support for companies' decisions to discriminate against women and people of color, discuss how he's deeply anti-choice, and throw in a few wife-beating jokes for good measure.

So does he not know that he voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control for women? Or does he just not want to talk about it?

Think Progress has more.

This is rich:

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee's "Victory Chairman," was discussing consumer-driven health insurance at a breakfast with reporters when she proposed "a real, live example which I've been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice." For effect, the woman frequently mentioned as a possible McCain running mate repeated: "Those women would like a choice."

Apparently Fiorina didn't get the memo that McCain has voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. And if I were her, I wouldn't repeat that "women would like a choice" line when she's stumping for a candidate who is blatantly anti-choice.

This is only the second time in history that Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a presidential candidate. Check out endorsement statement by President Cecile Richards and clip of Obama below.

I say that's hilarious considering who this is coming from. I'm a week late on this, but it's a necessary mention. Via Think Progress:

Kristol: I think Hillary Clinton was gracious, she's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated. I'm appalled by it, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party, you know...we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women. That's why McCain is going to put Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, on the ticket.

This is coming from a guy who said that "white women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that" and was named in the Media Hall of Shame by the National Organization for Women.

Many of you have probably heard about Obama's interview with a Christian magazine last week where he said he said that "mental distress" is not a sufficient exception to bans against late-term abortions. He later clarified his statement:

"My only point is this-historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family, I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

In the past, there has been some fear on the part of people who--not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle--that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case. I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. . .

It can be defined through physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

His clarification has still, nonetheless, brought up questions of whether Obama would support narrowing abortion rights. We thought we'd open this up for discussion. People's thoughts?

Check out more coverage on this.

Laura Flanders' great show GRITtv takes on sexism in the media with two of my fave people: Rebecca Traister of Salon and Chris Rabb of Afro-Netizen. (They start talking about gender about 12 minutes in)

You know, there is something simultaneously hilarious and disgusting about Blogginheads hosting Ann Althouse (of boob-shaming fame) and Robin Givhan (of WaPo's cleavage coverage) in a clip called "Michelle Obama's Arms." It's like they have no shame whatsoever. (And they really, really should.)

If Bloggingheads is really supposed to be about making political discourse better by circumventing corporate television to give folks ample time to talk about issues in depth (rather than in sound bites) - then why in the world would they produce something like this, which basically embodies the worst of American media?

Or maybe this is just what they think "women's issues" are? Tits, arms and power suits?

RH Reality Check has a special feature this week - an election coverage package on choice. Dana Goldstein has the run down of pro-choicers running in Senate races, choice-related ballot initiatives, and everything else in between. Make sure to check it out!

No shocker there, but thought it was worth repeating.

Thanks to Eric for the link.

Rebecca Traister has a great piece up about Clinton supporters are why they're pissed. It's a must-read.

via Michelle Obama Watch, a teaser for a Hardball segment on Michelle Obama featured "female silhouetted dancers." Apparently MSNBC was suggesting she adopt a "new outlook" of strictly tight miniskirts and stilettos. Michelle Obama Watch thinks the silhouettes look like strippers. And what's with the B-movie/pulp novel font?

MSNBC pulled the teaser, acknowledging it was "inappropriate." HuffPo has the video.

The Wonk Room (via Kay) has the rundown of why John McCain is just like those very serious anti-contraception folks.

• Voted to end "the Title X family planning program, credited with helping prevent over 9 million abortions."
• Voted against funding teen-pregnancy-prevention programs and ensuring that "abstinence-only" programs are medically accurate.
• Voted for the domestic gag rule, which would have prohibited federally funded family-planning clinics from providing women with access to full information about their reproductive-health options.
• Voted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to establish a new "abstinence-only" program that censors information about birth control.
• Declined to help reduce the need for abortion and improve maternal health by opposing effort to require insurance coverage for prescription birth control, improve access to emergency contraception, and provide more women with prenatal health care.
• Voted against legislation that would have prevented unintended pregnancy by investing in insurance coverage for prescription birth control, promoting family-planning