Notes on Politics: Hillary Clinton Appeared in Public Without Makeup. Film at 11.

 

How sad is it, the fact that the U.S. Secretary of State appeared in public without cosmetics having been applied to her face (she wore lipstick) is considered big news? That it was a lead story on Drudge? That the internet was all abuzz about it?

While I absolutely love that Hillary Clinton said she has no interest in what people are saying about her decision not to wear makeup (except for lipstick) -- and hope that young women take note of how she doesn't care -- the fact that it's news at all, never mind prominently so, is disturbing.

Where are the news stories intelligently parsing what she was in Bangladesh to speak about, because it certainly wasn't about the multi-million-dollar American cosmetics industry? I haven't heard a whole lot about why she was over there in the first place, only that she did so wearing glasses (The scandal!) and let people see that she has freckles (The horror!).

I take umbrage at how some folks are responding to the photos, with some saying she looked like a "schoolgirl" (Girl? Really? When are male pols referred to as "boys?") and others maligning her as looking "tired and withdrawn."

I don't care about any of that. Just tell me what she was there to discuss, will you please? I don't want to read about speculation as to whether she has a stylist. After some rooting around online, I learned that Clinton was discussing microlending to the poor, expressing her hope that such efforts wouldn't be "undermined by government actions" in Bangladesh, CNN reported. Additionally, Clinton called for the end of politically-motivated violence and for "further cooperation between the United States and Bangladesh on counter-terrorism, environmental, health, food security and educational issues," the Los Angeles Times reported. But the focus of the bulk of the coverage? Her looks.

Erin Gloria Ryan at the blog Jezebel likewise had a strong reaction to this no make-up flap, saying:

"For a society that produces ads and photo spreads so airbrushed that they're technically cartoons, we're oddly obsessed with seeing women without airbrushing for various reasons: to satisfy our own curiosities (and insecurities) or so that we can mock them for being human or praise them for bucking tradition, especially if they're women in power, and double extra especially if they're polarizing women in power. But even entering the conversation is unnecessary and dangerous."

Image credit: Pavel Rahman/AP via Yahoo News.

Notes on Pop Culture: Hillz Yeah!, Plus Trailers for 'Veep' & 'The Newsroom'

Hillary Clinton's Got Game

I first saw it last week, the internet meme based on a single photo of Hillary Clinton on a government plane, using her cell phone while wearing sunglasses. The meme was given a simple name, "Texts from Hillary" where people imagined what our Secretary of State would've texted to the likes of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Mitt Romney, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, actor Ryan Gosling and comedian Jon Stewart.

This week, Madam Secretary responded to the internet sensation with a genuine message of her own: "Thanks for the many LOLZ. Hillary 'Hillz.'"

Oh yes. She did.

Her reply was the subject of a Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times about how Clinton has gone from being a member of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit crowd, to radiating cool.

Season 1 Trailer

Season 1 Trailer 2

HBO's 'Veep' Trailers

Speaking of politicians . . . have you seen the trailers for HBO's upcoming comedy Veep starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus?

Louis-Dreyfus' Vice President Selina Meyer reminds me of some kind of weird blend of Parks & Recreation's Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler, without the wide-eyed naivete), Tina Fey's version of Sarah Palin and Louis-Dreyfus's recent character, Christine Campbell (from The New Adventures of Old Christine), with a dash of the intelligent irreverence of Showtime's Episodes thrown in. Can't wait.

Season 1 Trailer - A Changed Man

'The Newsroom' Trailer

Also promising, the promo for HBO's new show The Newsroom, which premieres on June 24, from the mind that brought you The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin.

Looks fabulous. Hope it does not disappoint.

Image credits: Texts from Hillary.

Misogynists R Us: They're Republicans AND Democrats

Rush Limbaugh deserves every single shred of vitriol that's being thrown at him for his repeated, vile and reprehensible attacks which he hurled at a Georgetown University law student who testified before a congressional panel arguing that contraception should be covered by health insurers, calling her, among other things, a slut and a prostitute.

Rush, you have philosophical differences of opinion with Sandra Fluke, the law student. So go ahead, slice and dice her arguments, her rationale, her point of view as it relates to the government's role in contraception coverage. But keep it about politics, not the person. Yet, Rush didn't do that and he got himself into "heap big trouble," as he might say. And the trouble was of his own making. He shouldn't be surprised that calling a woman a "slut" and suggesting that she post sex videos of herself on the internet to justify her pro-contraception coverage argument would make his advertisers queasy and prompt them to flee his show like the Titanic, despite his apologies (made only after sustaining serious pressure from his sponsors, thereby nullifying their authenticity).

But as Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers pointed out this week, Limbaugh isn't the only bombastic talk machine who's a misogynist and who has gone after a woman on a sexual or physical basis rather than the woman's argument, invoking coarse, sexist language that seems designed to drive women out of the marketplace of ideas, to keep them in their place, which is to serve as wives, mothers and/or sex objects.

So in the wake of Limbaugh's moronic tangents about Fluke, I decided to use Powers' column, which details liberal/Democratic examples of misogyny, as a jumping off point for a little quiz. See if you can discern which sexist attack came from the lips of a liberal/Democrat and which came from a conservative/Republican:

1. Who called a female national radio talk show host a "slut" because he disagreed with her criticism of the president who was drinking brewskis in Ireland as a tornado was ransacking Missouri? A liberal/Democrat or a conservative/Republican?
2. Who used the phrase "bimbo alert" in reference to a female politician shortly after she was named to a prominent position? A liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican?
3. Who referred to a high profile female politician as a "dumb twat" and the C-word?
4. Who stood by and chuckled as a supporter referred to a female U.S. senator as a "bitch?"
5. Who said of a female politician, "There's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary?"
6. Who referred to a female politician as a "she-devil" who looked "witchy," referred to her as "Nurse Ratchet" and remarked that her voice "can grate on some men when they listen to it, fingernails on a blackboard?"
7. Who asked a female politician on a national news program, "Breast implants, did you have them or not?"
8. Who suggested that a powerful female politician should be taken into a room by a presidential nominating convention super-delegate "and only he comes out?"

Answers:

1. The liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz called conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" and a "right-wing slut."
2. Again, our friend Schultz in 2008, days after she was named as John McCain's running mate, called Sarah Palin an "empty pantsuit" who was a walking "bimbo alert," according to the Washington Post.
3. Comedian/talk show host Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to President Obama's Super-PAC, hurled those epithets at Palin, according to Mediaite.
4. Republican Arizona Senator John McCain said, "That's an excellent question," after a supporter asked him during the last presidential campaign, "How do we beat the bitch?" referring to fellow U.S. senator Hillary Clinton, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.
5. Conservative Republican then-MSNBC host Tucker Carlson attacked Clinton as "castrating," the Post-Intelligencer said. 
6. Liberal MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews has, on a number of occasions, slammed Clinton in a sexist fashion, according to the Daily Kos.
7. Fox News Channel talk show host Greta van Susteren asked Palin about the "buzz" on the internet about whether she had breast implants, the Huffington Post reported.
8. Then-MSNBC liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann said this about Clinton, the Huffington Post said.

The conclusion:

There's rampant, over-the-top sexism and a focus on women as a collection of body parts and sexual objects in the media and American political arena. Period. (Watch the documentary Miss Representation if you question this.) And, for all the justified criticism directed at Limbaugh, it needs to be noted that the sexism comes from both the left and the right. They are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to women and we should, together, turn all of these misogynists into pariahs, not just the conservative/Republican ones. All of them.

Image credit: Name It, Change It.

A Glimpse of HBO's 'Game Change' ... I'm Not Optimistic

When I finished reading the best selling book Game Change, which chronicled the behind-the-scenes exploits of the 2008 presidential campaign, I was pretty steamed. Now I’m a political junkie and love books about campaigns. I read Richard Ben Cramer’s behemoth What It Takes (1,072 pages) about the 1988 presidential campaign . . . twice. Thought it was brilliant. Some folks have likened Game Change, by veteran journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to Cramer’s book. So why did Game Change irk me? It demonized the women who were depicted as toxic, irrational villains.

In the Pop Culture and Politics column that I wrote in 2010 after reading Game Change, I lamented, “The men – [John] Edwards, Barack Obama, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Rudy Giuliani – were portrayed as feisty, profane, inspiring, cocky, narcissistic, messianic, shallow, phony and occasionally ill-tempered, although when their anger was discussed it seemed to be of a variety that didn’t warrant a bunch of florid, patronizing adjectives, as if such behavior is the norm while the women’s behavior is the aberration.”

“When it came to the two female candidates – Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – and the female spouses of the candidates (with the exception of Michelle Obama), they were frequently described with negative, female-centric put-downs and held to starkly different standards,” I added.

Hillary Clinton was described as “bitter,” “befuddled” and had “a staggering lack of calm or command.” After Obama clinched the nomination, Clinton was painted as “somber, prideful, aggrieved, confused – and still high on the notion that she was leading an army, Napoleon in a navy pantsuit and gumball-sized fake pearls.”

Sarah Palin was compared to Eliza Doolittle and The Wizard of Oz’s Dorothy. She was described as having a “hissy fit” and a “conniption,” and being a “big-time control freak.” She was called “mentally unstable,” having been in a “catatonic stupor” during debate prep, in addition to being “a hick on a high wire.”

Cindy McCain, ridiculed as a cold “beauty queen,” was a bawling mess who was, at one point, described as having “flounced back to Phoenix.”

The now-deceased Elizabeth Edwards, who was suffering a relapse of breast cancer at around the same time she learned that her husband had been messing around with another woman, was “an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy woman. Who was “prone to irrational outbursts.”

So when I learned that HBO had bought the rights to the book and was planning on making a movie based on it (set to be released in March starring Julianne Moore as Palin, Ed Harris as John McCain), I wasn’t thrilled.

I’ll be happy if the filmmakers opt to provide a balanced look at all the players in the 2008 campaign, regardless of gender. But if they are very faithful to the book, I fear the results will be nothing more than demeaning, sexist schlock as seen through the eyes of men. Let’s hope I’m wrong. It's hard to tell what the film will be like based on the short teaser that HBO released this week.

Image credit: Amazon.

Notes on Politics: Ingraham ‘Just a Pretty Girl,’ Sexism Hurts Female Pols, Pining for Hillary & Political Moms

Talk Show Host Ingraham ‘Just a Pretty Girl?’

While filling in for the vacationing Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor last week, pundit Laura Ingraham was grilling Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel by lobbing a series of tough, rapid-fire questions his way, many of which went off the original topic. Rep. Rangel’s response, after he said Ingraham was simply issuing “mini-speeches” instead of questioning him, was to say this: “Bill O’Reilly told me he had a secret weapon. I didn’t know it was just a pretty girl that they’d bring in.” At the tail-end of the interview, he “apologized” by saying, “I’m sorry I said you were attractive.”

This was just last week. In the year 2011.

Just.

A.

Pretty.

Girl.

Sexism Hurts Female Politicians

If you scroll down on the Mediaite web site, where I first read about Rangel’s comments to Ingraham, you’ll see that many of the comments degenerated from discussing the actual content of Rangel and Ingraham’s words, to Ingraham’s looks (both positive and negative), comparing her appearance to those of other political women, calling her sexual slurs and suggesting that she had sex with another famous TV pundit.

It’s comments like the ones directed at Ingraham based on her gender that, when directed at female politicians, actually have a measurable negative impact on those women’s chances of getting elected, even if those comments are flattering, like calling someone “pretty” or “hot.” That’s the centerpiece of my pop culture and politics column this week, that even when people call Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann attractive, or put Bachmann on the cover of Newsweek looking crazy after a pundit had asked her if she was a “flake” not too long ago, or when a fashion “guru” criticizes Hillary Clinton’s clothing selections using gender-specific language, that type of commentary erodes people’s confidence in the female candidates:

“Last fall, a study conducted by the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity found that demeaning female political candidates with sexist language and images ‘undercuts her political standing,’ USA Today reported. The Democratic pollster who ran the survey told the newspaper, ‘I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism.’ What kind of effect? The survey found that in a hypothetical campaign between a male and a female and the female was criticized or depicted in a sexist way: ‘The female candidate lost twice as much support when even the mild sexist language was added to the attack’ and ‘the sexist language undermined favorable perceptions of the female candidate, leading voters to view her as less empathetic, trustworthy and effective,’ USA Today said.”

This is why, while I was researching this piece, I was happy to come across the web site Name It. Change It. whose sole goal it to point out and speak up when they see women candidates, of all political stripes, assailed by misogynistic remarks in the media. They do not let it lie. And neither should we.

The 2012 presidential race isn’t off to such a great start, as far as sexism and the media are concerned. Let’s hope the folks at Name It. Change It. can help improve matters.

Pining for Hillary

Are those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary suffering from buyer’s remorse? That’s what Rebecca Traister suggested in her column in the New York Times Magazine this past weekend in a piece entitled, “If Hillary Were President.”

“Three years after that intense and acrimonious time, in a period of liberal disillusionment, some on the left are engaging in an inverse fantasy,” she said. “Almost unbelievably, they are now daydreaming of how much better a Hillary Clinton administration might have represented them.”

And Traister wants those who are idealizing the could-have-been Hillary Clinton administration to cut it out: “. . . [T]o say it [that they wish Clinton had been elected] – much less to bray it – is small, mean, divisive and frankly dishonest. None of us know what would have happened with Hillary Clinton as president, no matter how many rounds of W.W.H.H.D. (What Would Hillary Have Done) we play.”

Of Political Moms

Speaking of women in politics, I just received my review copy of Joanne Bamberger’s new book, Mothers of Intention: How Women & Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America. Bamberger goes by the handle “PunditMom” online.) I’ll report back here after I’ve read it.

Image credits: Name It Change It, Amazon.

Tell Me That This Provocative Trailer Doesn't: 1) Move You & 2) Make You Want to See Documentary

This documentary, Miss Representation, about the impact of the media's depiction of women in sexual terms, was featured at the 2011 Sundance film festival and is now being featured in select screenings around the country.

While it's slated to air on the OWN network -- Oprah's station -- in the fall, the filmmakers are making the DVD available to civic groups for educational purposes. From the documentary's web site:

"As one of the most persuasive and pervasive forces in our culture, media is educating yet another generation that a woman’s primary value lay in her youth, beauty and sexuality — not in her capacity as a leader, making it difficult for women to obtain leadership positions and for the average girl to feel confident herself. Stories from teenage girls and provocative interviews with politicians, journalists, academics, and activists like Condoleezza Rice, Lisa Ling, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, Rosario Dawson, Jackson Katz, Jean Kilbourne and Gloria Steinem build momentum as Miss Representation accumulates startling facts and statistics that will leave audiences shaken and armed with a new perspective."

I'm hoping to get a screener because, as a mother of a young girl, this trailer completely to got me.

Notes on Politics: Jenny Sanford Goes Public and Gets Critiqued

Jenny Sanford -- the soon-to-be-ex-wife of South Carolina Gov. Mark "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" Sanford -- has been all over the media promoting her memoir, Staying True, about her life with the man who humiliated her by going on national television and tearfully declaring that his mistress was his "soul mate."

Sanford's the anti-Good Wife, the lead character of a CBS drama about a wife who has remained married to her philandering politician husband (who slept with prostitutes) who's incarcerated on charges of political corruption. Jenny Sanford decided she wasn't going to put up with her husband's insane behavior any longer, after several attempts to reconcile with him. So she's divorcing Mark Sanford and wrote a book about their experiences together. Jenny Sanford, who took time off from her career to raise the Sanfords' four boys and provide political advice to her husband, says she wants to return to work soon, but in the meantime, she's promoting Staying True and fielding criticism for doing so.

When she appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning, co-host Mika Brzezinski said that Jenny Sanford "chose a public route with this book" and asked how her four children are handling all of this publicity. Sanford responded, rightfully so, by pointing out that it was her husband who made this all public in the first place, whose e-mails to and from his lover were read from coast-to-coast. "It would not have been my choice to bring this scandal out in the light," Sanford said. (She also appeared on The Daily Show where she was asked a similar question.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Going ahead and writing this book has made Jenny Sanford the target of criticism and public debate about her own level of responsibility for her predicament and whether she's hurting her children by speaking out publicly:

On Huffington Post, there was an entry debating whether she should've stayed with her cheating husband.

The Washington Post pinned the blame on Sanford for putting up with mistreatment, with writer Ruth Marcus commenting, ". . . [T]he most disappointing part of Staying True is that, consciously or not, Jenny Sanford reveals her own complicity -- not in facilitating her husband's affair, but in allowing herself to be treated so badly for so long."

PunditMom was likewise disappointed in Jenny Sanford after reading excerpts from her memoir, saying, "By marrying [Mark Sanford] and allowing her sons to see her treated in such a casually neglectful way, it sure doesn’t seem like she stayed true to herself or to her obligation as a parent to give her children an example of what a healthy marriage should look like . . . Clearly, their marriage was lacking. One could say, well that’s just between them, but it isn’t — they have four sons who’ve watched and learned about what a woman is willing to put up with for the sake of keeping her man, even a louse who acts like he couldn’t care less."

The same criticism could and has been lobbed at Hillary Clinton -- who also wrote a book mentioning her husband's mistreatment -- as well as at other wives of male politicians who've not only publicly discussed their husband's infidelity but remained married to the men who have treated them poorly, and in full view of their children. I'm of the mind that it's really, really difficult to say what you, personally, would do if you were Jenny Sanford or Hillary Clinton. It makes me uncomfortable to judge women as strong (or good role models) based on whether they stay or leave their cheating husbands, or whether they put their own story out into the public sphere or suffer in silence (like Silda Spitzer).

I keep thinking of Elizabeth Edwards who wrote her own memoir detailing her response to learning that her husband John had cheated on her, and decided that she'd stay married to him. A year later, after all manner of scandal and searingly awful personal details have come out about Elizabeth and John Edwards and John's mistress (and his love child), and the couple has announced their separation. Am I going to judge Elizabeth Edwards for writing her book, talking publicly about the pain John caused her and her decision to stay with him in 2009, and now, a year later, she's changed her mind? Nope. I'm not Elizabeth Edwards. And I'm not Jenny Sanford nor am I Hillary Clinton. I feel for all of these women and hope that they, and their children, can somehow find some peace amid the wreckage caused by their cheating husbands.

Image credit: Jenny Sanford's web site.

Notes on Politics: 'Game Change' Caricatures the Women in the 2008 Presidential Election

While the nation's political chattering classes are busy buzzing about Republican Scott Brown's "epic upset" (I've seen this phrase in many news stories) over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race to fill the remaining term of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, it's worth taking a step back from the day's news (and the woefully inept Coakley campaign which blew a substantial lead and had once been considered a lock) and looking at how women in and around national politics are treated by the media.

I spent the bulk of last week plowing through the lengthy and riveting expose of the 2008 presidential election, the best selling Game Change, written by two journalists who declined to reveal who they interviewed for their book and who gave them what pieces of information. (That, to me, is problematic from a journalism ethics point of view, but that's grist for another rant on another day.) When I was done reading the book, I was so steamed about how the women were treated that I dedicated my Pop Culture and Politics column to it. With the exception of Michelle Obama, the female spouses of the candidates and the two female candidates -- Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin -- were described in an abysmal, sexist fashion. One had her reactions to bad news stories about her family labeled "hysterical" and another was dismissed as being a "beauty queen" who "flounced" back home after a disagreement with her husband, that's when she wasn't said to be weeping. One woman was depicted as having "hissy fits" and "conniptions," while another was maligned (guess which woman) as "Napoleon in a navy pantsuit and gumball-sized fake pearls."

Adding to my irritation were the cartoonish illustrations which accompanied a Game Change excerpt published in New York Magazine which portrayed Elizabeth Edwards as a monster (in one image, one of her hands was curled up so that her fingers looked like claws as spit came out her mouth), John Edwards' mistress was a smitten flirt and John Edwards himself was shown shouting and then sweating as news of his affair broke. Elizabeth Edwards, by far, came out looking the worst.

After taking this all in, I had to wonder: Were the authors simply relating the viewpoints of the blabber-mouth, disloyal former campaign aides who dished about these women, or were these words selected independently by the reporters and reflect their own opinions? Or, frighteningly, both?

Image credit: Nathan Fox/New York Magazine.

Women Pols -- of Both Parties -- on Receiving End Sexist Attacks

Last week, it was Sarah Palin who Newsweek editors put on the cover of a newsweekly in running shorts to coincide with the release of her memoir, Going Rogue. The editors argued that the photo was the most "interesting" one they could've selected from the thousands of Palin to place on their cover.

The cheap shots at Palin -- which were not about her policy positions -- prompted me to write this column about how powerful women pols like Palin and Hillary Clinton, when she was running for president, have been subjected to sexually oriented attacks which don't get lobbed at their male counterparts. (I also complained that, if you actually go around and tell people that it's wrong for women to be judged by their bodies, make-up, clothing and sexual attractiveness, you're obliged to object when women on both sides of the political aisle are subjected to it.)

Now comes this photographic commentary from Time Magazine: A Photoshopped image of a female Democratic senator with a pretend glob of semen in her hair, a la There's Something About Mary. A male journalist decided it'd be funny satire to depict Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, whose vote is considered pivotal to the health care legislation, looking like Cameron Diaz in the slapstick movie. Broadsheet writer Tracy Clark-Flory wrote this about it thusly:

"On November 19, the image was posted to The Page blog, which is written by Mark Halperin, and ran with the caption, 'Senator Landrieu's latest position on proceeding on health care debate here.'

As Media Matters points out, this only adds to 'a broader, sexist right-wing narrative that the U.S. Senator from Louisiana is, as Glenn Beck put it yesterday, 'a high-class prostitute' engaged in 'hookin' -- all because she lobbied Senate leadership for expanded Medicaid funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill in what was characterized by the media as an exchange for her 'yea' vote to proceed with floor debate on the bill.'

. . . So fellas, you've already illustrated her with ejaculate in her hair and called her a prostitute -- what's next? I shudder to think."

Over on the Huffington Post, the response went a little something like this, ". . . Mark Halperin is the worst and should be publicly scorned."

I do, however, disagree with Media Matters when it argues that this "sexist narrative" is applied to women only by conservatives. It's applied to women by women and men from both sides of the political spectrum, and to pretend that it's only conservatives who do the sexist attacking is turning a convenient blind eye.

Image credit: Broadsheet.

'The View' Panelists (Except Joy) Slam Newsweek's Palin Cover

It was heartening to see that the panelists on The View -- with the exception of Joy Behar -- put politics aside and agreed that for Newsweek editors to put former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the cover while wearing jogging shorts was demeaning and disrepectful. (The link to a terrible quality video of the segment is here. You have to really punch the volume up to hear it.)

I don't care that Palin originally posed for that photo for Runner's World, a magazine where men and women appear in running attire and in which her photo was in the proper context. She did NOT pose for that photo with the intention that it would be on the cover of a news magazine that parses all things politics and national events. This was just not right and is a naked example of media bias.

Here's the lame explanation offered by Newsweek's editor Jon Meacham:

"We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

Sorry Mr. Meacham, I'm not buyin' it. You wouldn't be doing this to Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or Nancy Pelosi.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Hillary Clinton Tells Off Questioner, Dances, Plus Testy Health Care Town Mtgs

Hillary Clinton Tells Off Congo Questioner

Me thinks that our secretary of state must've been on the receiving end of a whole mess o'sexist commentary thus far in her tenure, and constantly feel one-upped by her suck-all-the-oxygen-out-of-the-room spouse who got international accolades for helping to negotiate with the North Koreans for the freedom for two U.S. journalists last week. That's the only explanation I have (except maybe sleep deprivation) for Hillary Clinton ditching her normally professionally cool responses to difficult questions and telling a college student from Congo, in a matter of speaking, that she didn't like her question. One problem: The questioner didn't intend to insult Hillary Clinton. The translator screwed up. Whoops.



Hillary Dance Party

I always feel badly for U.S. officials when they venture abroad, play along with local customs and show courtesy to their hosts. How many presidents have donned un-western-like clothing and gotten mocked for wearing the duds by the folks back home?

So when an international host invites you to dance, what are you supposed to say, "No thank you. The late night comedians and folks on the internet will torture me about my dancing. Forever. I'll pass."

Of course not. You dance. And then be a good sport and suffer through the ridicule. Like Hillary Clinton has to at the hands of Conan O'Brien's staff about her dancing during her trip to Africa:



Testy Health Care Town Meetings

The recent spate of health care/health insurance town meetings between congressmen and senators and their constituents have gotten fairly heated haven't they? Some have devolved into circuses where no one gets heard and no one communicates and it all becomes white noise as tempers flare.

As I've watched this unfold, I've seen two sides getting fired up and becoming unable or unwilling to actually listen to the concerns of the other side, with the exception of Barack Obama himself, who seems game to field and handle pointed questions without shutting people down. (However people haven't been as nasty to him personally as they have been to U.S. congressmen and senators.)

The pro-Obama administration folks have tended to parrot the president's lines, like the ones spoken today at Obama's town meeting in New Hampshire: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." Obama said he doesn't want government bureaucrats OR insurance company bureaucrats "meddling" and getting involved in medical decisions made between you and your doctor. He said there won't be "death panels" run by the government to decide if a frail or sick senior should be provided health care. Obama has repeatedly told the story of his mother spending the last weeks of her life fighting with the health insurance company over her cancer treatments. He's also fond of saying, "No one in America should go broke because they got sick." The White House has created a web site which officials said seeks to clarify some of the misinformation voters have been given about the various health care reform bills. (Full disclosure: I haven't read the health care reform bills, though I think I might and then post what I find.)

All of those things seem to be common points of interest on which both conservatives and liberals could, essentially, agree. Keep all bureaucrats out of medical decisions. Pick your own health plan and your doctor. You shouldn't be driven into bankruptcy if someone in your family is sick. All good.

However there's a divergence from all of those common points when it comes down to actual legislation. People, many of them conservative-leaning, have been doing some research into the bills and have become nervous. They fear panels of government officials making decisions related to their health. (I imagine someone from my state's notoriously unfriendly Registry of Motor Vehicles handling my or my children's health claims and I shudder.) They don't want a single, government-run health care plan, which Sen. Arlen Specter today said he'll consider as senators discuss competing pieces of health insurance legislation. People are justifiably leery about how much this is going to cost, particularly during a recession.

Then, at town meetings across the country where there have been people posing well reasoned questions about the plans, there've also been screaming nutcases. The media give a lot of the coverage to the nutcases and eventually everyone who questions the plan is lumped under the category of an unruly mob. It's at this point when we realize that when it comes to health care and making life-and-death decisions, people take things very personally.

Democratic proponents of the health care overhaul haven't made things better by labeling the voters who are getting riled up at town meetings "un-American," like several of the people at Senator Specter's meeting with constituents today. There's a way to express your skepticism, disapproval and ask tough questions without being a jack ass.

Having partisans like Ann Coulter and James Carville chattering on Good Morning America about these emotional town halls certainly doesn't help bestow calm or promote rational discussion. But rational discussion can be quite boring, mind-numbing at times, and doesn't make for good TV which thrives on drama and conflict. I'd love to see leaders from both sides of the aisle, step up and seek the calm, boring middle ground here, tamp down the fury and the name calling and bore us all to death with reasonable and open discussions. For as long as it takes, without rushing. But I guess that's just too much to ask for.

Or we could just call Jon Stewart for his read on the situation. While he is a liberal, he's funny.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

NYT's 2008 Buzzwords

When 2008 is but a mere memory, what buzzwords will it have yielded that actually last? The New York Times ran a lengthy piece this past weekend offering a list of 38 buzzwords and phrases the authors say were made popular this year, including many politically-oriented terms, given that we just experienced a historic presidential election season.

Among the political terms:

-- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spawned three on the list: Caribou Barbie, "hockey mom" and "lipstick on a pig." "Maverick" was also on the list, but mostly because John McCain used it liberally about himself and then applied it to Palin.

-- Barack Obama was credited with spawning a whole host of derivations of his name -- both positive and negative -- ranging from "Obamanation" to "Obamacize and "Obamafy." His playful gesture with his wife Michelle was called a potential "terrorist fist jab" by a Fox News Channel anchor, not in jest.

-- "Joe" was there for a multitude of reasons, from Joe the Plumber, to "Joe Six-Pack" and "Amtrak Joe" (as in Joe Biden who took Amtrak to and from work).

Apolitical buzzwords included:

-- "Phelpsian" as in something having to do with Olympic gold be-dazzled swimmer Michael Phelps, or his insanely calorie-ific diet of a bazillion calories.

-- "Sister Wife," first heard by many on HBO's Big Love, but mentioned on this list because of the news stories spawned by this year's raid on a Texas polygamous compound.

-- Any form of the word Twitter (tweet, Twittering), of which I'd never heard until this year, unless it had to do with a bird.

Any words or phrases you think should've been on their list but wasn't? I'd toss into the mix: "Bailout" (self-explanatory), "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits" (Hillary Clinton's nickname for her followers) and "bleep" in honor of the embattled Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.

Image credit: New York Times.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Poll Respondents Say Media Demonstrate a Gender Bias

The Daily Beast, a new web site created by Tina Brown, commissioned a poll of 1,000 voters conducted in the days immediately after the election. The results present an interesting snapshot of folks' thoughts about this past election and the issue of sexism in light of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin's candidacies. Among the findings:

-- 57 percent said the media have a gender bias, while 79 percent said the media treat male and female political candidates differently.

-- While most rejected the term "feminist," they resoundingly rejected the notion that because of how this presidential campaign unfolded and the ensuing treatment of Clinton and Palin, we won't likely see more women vying for top elected offices in the near future.

-- 64 percent strongly disagreed with the notion that men are more suited to be president.

-- 74 percent strongly disagreed with the idea that female political candidates are more emotional.

-- When it came to their perception of the climate for women in general, respondents said women are not treated equally at work, in politics or in the military. Home was the only place where a majority of those polled said women are treated equally. (I for one, would take issue with the issue of equity at home.)

Agree or disagree with the findings? Think the media demonstrated a gender bias toward Clinton and Palin?

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: I Feel Sorry for Joe the Plumber & Candidates Get Funny

I Feel Sorry for Joe the Plumber

Really.

This single dad -- who most of America is already sick of -- didn't ask to be propelled into the national spotlight, didn't ask for folks to dig through his personal affairs. It's horribly unfortunate that he first entered the public domain when he questioned Barack Obama about how his tax plan would affect his plumbing business' growth, and has now come to the media digging up info about how Joe owes back taxes, has a lean on his holdings, isn't a registered plumber and whose first name is Samuel.

Maybe Joe the Plumber could use a little help from Joe Six-Pack about now. Poor guy.

Yesterday morning -- before any real info about Joe Wurzelbacher hit the internet -- my kids asked me if I wished I'd been the one about whom the presidential candidates discussed (25 mentions!) during a debate. I said, "No. No way." I would never want that kind of scrutiny, with folks using me for political gain.

Candidates Get Funny

The last presidential debate was feistier than the previous two. The candidates were asked tough questions and addressed hot button topics. Most pundits are giving John McCain the edge on content, Obama on style. How the debate may or may not have affected the decisions of undecided voters in swing states is an open question.

When it comes to the public opinion polls on who's leading, just 19 days before the election, it's still too early to tell. If last night's stunning Red Sox come-from-behind win against the Tampa Bay Rays in the American League Championship Series (the Sox were down 7-0 in the the 7th then staged the biggest playoff comeback since 1929) is any indication, you can't assume you know who's going to win. Obama may be ahead in the polls at this moment in time, but he only has a narrow lead. Anything can happen. Last week we didn't know about Joe the Plumber. Around Labor Day, we didn't know we were headed for a stock market crash. Remember, Obama was expected to crush Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. And lost.

What was refreshing, though, was last night's Al Smith dinner in New York where McCain and Obama let loose their sarcasm and their wit. And were sharply entertaining. If only the debates could be like this.