feminist blogs

[With sincerest apologies to Jane.]

Folks, here’s the deal. I’m sick to death of people bashing Clinton by citing all the evidence of how Obama is being bashed, and vice-versa. (Can we not just agree that bias is an inherently bad thing, and not refuse to note its existence whenever it does not concern “our” candidate? And from there, simply try to reach the least obfuscated views of the day’s issues, and make the most informed political decisions we can, from there? Please?)

So tonight I went to Media Matters to have a look at their (generally quite excellent and thorough) recent coverage of media bias against both candidates. Sadly, there was a lot to look at. I actually left the site after a while, and instead loaded their feed for all recent items into Bloglines, saving the relevant titles, and later copying each post link into a column: Bias against Clinton, or Bias against Obama. (Note: Specific hits on both candidates’ spouses, where relevant, are included. Also, I could only grab the feed for stories going as far back as February 1, so stories from before then are not represented here.)

Needless to say, there were also plenty of articles tackling bias against both candidates simultaneously, perhaps the most offensive of which detailed how the (perpetually pornsick) Fox News had asked a debate focus group [H]ow many of you want them to make love to each other? Also illustrative: CNN’s Yellin to Dem debate moderator Blitzer: “It looks like you’re going to have to be the grownup” - concerning the network’s characterization of Senators Obama and Clinton as childish, relative to Edwards, who had just exited the race. (My take: The media insists on infantilizing women and people of color; the identities of white men are rarely problematized.)

But that’s beyond what I’m trying to get at here.

You see, when Tennessee Guerrilla Women published a post, after the Potomac Primaries (in which I, as a Virginia voter, had voted for Obama), titled Media’s Candidate Wins, I was a bit taken aback.

To egalia’s statement:

The boys at CNN and MSNBC are pretending to be so amazed at just how well Obama did.

Like they had nothing to do with it.

I had responded, in comments, as follows:

There is an implication here that the actual, measurable strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in question had nothing to do with it. Chris Matthews and his ilk can kiss my ass, and I hold no ill will toward Clinton based on any of the slander that has been directed at her in the media (and blogosphere) any more than I would harbor ill will toward Obama based on any of the slander that has been directed at him in the media (and blogosphere). Reasonable, informed, progressive voters made the choice to vote for Barack Obama. The idea that his sweeping successes of this evening in the Potomac Primaries owes to the machinations of sexist jerkwads like Matthews is pretty insulting.

Further into the thread, in response to one woman’s question, Certainly you’re not denying that the media has great powers of persuasion? I responded:

Certainly, you’re not suggesting that I’m stupid enough to deny something that self-evident - right?

Duh. The media has a role here, and has both helped and hurt the respective candidacies of Clinton and Obama. What I object to is the implication that the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates, apart from their specific representations, have [not] played a role in the victories and the defeats of both candidates.

That is to say, the electorate is NOT comprised solely of MSM-brainwashed automatons. We think. We do research. We discuss matters of import with our friends, relatives, and neighbors.

Obama’s a strong candidate, period. Chalking up his win yesterday, by so significant a margin, to the bullshit-blabbering of Matthews et. al. is tantamount to saying that the people are stupid, don’t know what’s good for them, etc.

The media outlets that have reach where I live in Virginia are also represented, for example, among our neighbors in Tennessee. When Clinton won Tennessee, I assumed it was primarily on the basis of her strengths, not on the extent to which the media has either accurately, or inaccurately, represented same. So too with Obama’s win in Virginia. Why are you so intent to discount the discerning powers, not to mention the very will of the people?

Subsequently, someone commenting as “dmac,” responded to my bit about the media having helped and hurt both candidates’ campaigns:

In all seriousness please give me an example where the media has hurt Obama.

To this, one commenter immediately replied, Good question, dmac. We’re waiting - more of a taunt, of course, than an invitation to clear and constructive dialogue. (On the other hand, another commenter Mary gave concrete answers to the question - which, unsurprisingly, went generally ignored by the TGW readership.)

I replied:

…to the person who asked - rhetorically of course (when a person asks for “an example” of a an excruciatingly well-established phenomena of which there are countless examples, she or he has clearly already decided no such examples exist or will be seen as valid no matter what proof is supplied) [about “where the media has hurt Obama”] - I will be responding to your taunt elsewhere, on my own blog, in the next few days.

Well, I’m now on day 15 of those “few days,” (adherence to even my own deadlines has never been my strong suit), but this post is my response to dmac’s question.

So, after the jump, you will find the results of my informal review - which of course is limited to stories available at Media Matters; I’m not taking on the whole damn world tonight. I’m also not taking on things the candidates have said about one another, much less all that has been said in the blogosphere about the candidates (I dealt with some of that horror and heartbreak last night).

Because I’m only consulting one source, I’m not going to pretend it’s objective, but I think it does present a good snapshot view about the vast extent of media bias against both candidates.

(more…)

(Or, How to Lose One’s Halfhearted Attachment to a Presidential Candidate in Six Days.)

On this, the eve (or rather, the extremely early morning) of the New Hampshire presidential primaries, I have a few thoughts that I’m not going to defer, despite the even-more-unstable-than-usual state of this blog*.

As of a few days ago, I had this bumper sticker on the back of our vehicle:

But now, in these very early A.M. hours of Tuesday, my husband and I have elected (as it were) to rearrange the verbiage, so that it looks like this:

Now, there are plenty of people in the progressive and feminist circles I tangentially inhabit, who are doing an excellent job of discussing the electoral issues of the moment. That’s not for me.

What I will do is briefly document the progression of my thinking on matters concerning “Clinton v. Obama,” from an assortment of micro-blog “tweets” over the last few days. (Incidentally, I wrote about Edwards almost a year ago; I never could indulge the man a change of heart after all that. Funny that these days, what little blog traffic I have is driven by this Google search.) Mind you, the service I am using, Twitter, only allows 140 characters for each entry, so this will not be especially detailed or profound. Still, this effectively documents the matter of how I leaped from one (halfhearted) bandwagon to another in the course of a week - and I am sincerely hoping that other folks do, too. (New Hampshire, you are hanging on my every word, aren’t you?)

Now, for the selection of relevant microblog posts:

• Okay, who died and made Iowa God? 11:48 PM January 02
• I’d be heartbroken if Obama got the nomination, then lost the race. It’s because I WANT him to win in 2016, that I support Clinton for 2008. 12:01 AM January 03
• Plus: the Clintons have been swimming with sharks for YEARS. Who better to wrest power from the most corrupt administration in U.S. history? 12:01 AM January 03
• Although, come to think of it, this wasn’t exactly the most enthusiastic Clinton ‘endorsement.’ 02:09 AM January 03
• Go, Obama, go. But if you’re going to take Iowa (& NH, SC, etc.) PLEASE make it to the finish line. I can’t take another 8 yrs of Repugs. 09:49 PM January 03
• Obama, tonight: ‘…You’ll be able to look back with pride and say, This was the moment when it all began.’ Lord God, let him be right. 11:31 PM January 03
• Did not expect to like ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’. But it was impressive, & eerily timely, with references to the (1st) Bhutto assassination. 11:37 PM January 06
  • (Annotation: The movie was also relevant given some surprising - and apparently factual - references to Rudolph Giuliani.)
• Olbermann is right to point out (in last night’s ‘Countdown’, which I’m just now watching) similarities between Clinton’s behavior & Rove’s.about 1 hour ago
• Come to think of it, I never did forgive the Clintons for NAFTA or welfare “reform.” Looks like I might not have to “settle.” GO, OBAMA, GO. 1 minute ago

–
*Said “unstable state” consisting of several elements, among them:

1. A content hiatus which I wish I could say was simply in solidarity with the Writers’ Strike, rather than yet another reflection of my chronic blogging ambivalence (hey, I never claimed I didn’t have a huge problem with this), and
2. Another template overhaul (yeah, as if I’ve ever implemented so much as 10% of my previous template overhauls).

It is kind of saddening to see the venal, petty, disgruntled potshots some of the A-list blogpundits are taking at Barack Obama. For them, it seems he's just not enough the hard-line liberal, not enough the Party man. (Funny, that, considering you don't have to look too far back to see these same blogpundits attacking as demanding "ideological purity" critics of the now-discredited and clearly unreliable Yellow Dog Democrats.)

One expects a Dominionist candidate like Mitt Romney, a traditional neo-authoritarian candidate like Rudi Giuliani, and knuckleheaded television clowns to attack Obama. After all, they will attack any Democrat for any number of reasons -- mainly daring to be so unpatriotic as to refuse to be a Republican at least by name.

And one even expects Democratic candidates to criticize other Democrats so as to set themselves apart, for whatever reason. Which is why Hillary Clinton, the darling of some bloggers, is attacking Obama as being too progressive.

When I look at Barack Obama, I look as a skeptic of all the candidates. But of the Democratic offerings, I see someone who's not waving anti-corporate rhetoric like a machine gun (like John Edwards), and who's not invisible behind the managed and massaged messaging of handlers (like Hillary Clinton). Maybe what bothers the blogpundits is that Obama is actually appealing to Republicans.

And it's an appeal unlike what, say, Joe Lieberman has. For one thing, Obama is against the war on Iraq. For another thing, Obama doesn't dress up like a Republican while calling himself a Democrat. (Some of the blogpundits' favorite Yellow Dogs of the past can't make the same claim.) But I think the main thing is that Obama uses measured rhetoric. He's not much of a centrist in terms of policy, but he uses centrist rhetoric.

What that means is that Obama appeals to Republicans who are utterly disgusted with their own party's slate of idiots. This unlike Hillary Clinton, who couldn't not help but mock what Republicans might have supported her (by "seeing the light"). And unlike John Edwards, who I doubt even wants to get any support from Republicans.

Will he win? Of course I have no idea. But he does appeal to me for the mere fact that he's winning independents and conservatives over to his generally progressive views. That, I feel, is the opportunity he offers to changing the political climate in this country.

It means bad news for blogpundits who thrive on divisiveness, whose bank accounts could be severely impacted by the rise of a more of consensus political climate. But they shouldn't worry so much. There always will be idiots to oppose and rant about, and we still may see the Republican Party implode and reinvent itself for the first time in 40 years, and that certainly would be entertaining fodder.

...the actual candidates try to get a word in edge-wise. Why did Wolf Blitzer feel he had to interrupt every answer? It's like only the questions mattered to CNN. They didn't care about the answers.

And what was with that last question about diamonds or pearls?

This wasn't a debate -- it was a group interview, CNN style. Meaning no questions of substance -- such as, "What is your healthcare plan?" And certainly no time for any answers of substance.

This was CNN trying to assert its alpha dog status over the politicians. All with the highest ethical standards, don't you know. (I.e., selling commercials.)

The post-debate show was like watching a post-game wrap-up. David Gergen, James Carville and company used just about every sports metaphor in the book. "Hillary Clinton was rested and ready."

What are they? Horses?

Is it any wonder we turn to the internet for real news? CNN's "debate" show was a joke. How sad for our country.

Via Alas, a blog, we learn of the gender ratios of paid and volunteer staffs for the various presidential campaigns:

At The Huffington Post, Zephyr Teachout and Kelly Nuxoll provide a breakdown of presidential campaign staffs by gender. (They also provide links to an explanation of their methodology and a spreadsheet of their data)....

Just two of 15 senior Edwards staffers are women, with women filling 37 percent of the top-paid roles. Three of Obama’s 12 senior staffers are women, and women fill 45 percent of the highest-paying jobs. In fact, of all the leading candidates (the list also includes Huckabee, Richardson, Romney, and Thompson) the only candidate who did not favor male staffers was Clinton. On her campaign, eight of 14 senior staffers, 12 of the top-20 staffers, and 52 percent of the highest-paid staffers are women. Women are also much more likely to play important strategic roles in the Clinton campaign; in the other campaigns, women are more likely to work in finance and internal operations.

This may seem like petty stuff, but I think it foreshadows the gender breakdown of executive staff under a Clinton administration. As I’ve written before, gender matters. Women understand, and care about, women’s interests, which is one reason many women are supporting Clinton despite reservations about her politics.

- READ MORE -

Play of the Day: Romney's No Democrat

Well, duh! The guy is trying to be the scariest man since Himmler.

Edwards labels Clinton an Insider

Oooooh! I never saw that coming! Gotta admit, though: the MSM love a good fight (and will do what they can to spur it on).

Giuliani talks about his prostate cancer

And the issue is not whether he's healthy enough to take on this demanding office. No. It's the hook for his own health insurance plan. Thanks, AP. That's a great headline. Very informative.

Clinton, Giuliani top scary costume poll

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she's the top choice when people are asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

What does this mean? Is AP trying out for the writing staff of Saturday Night Live?

This one I just love:

Clinton dominates campaign news

This one we have to hand to Reuters. Nothing like the news media reporting their own behavior as news. I guess that's one way to try to boost circulation.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has dominated news coverage of the 2008 White House race, partly due to negative segments about her on conservative talk radio, according to a new study released on Monday.

At some point, someone new is going to be hired in journalism schools that is going to shake the orthodoxy up a bit. "Today a somebody said something about someone, according to something we heard somewhere, at some point." Now that's a way to hook a reader!

Giuliani blasts Clinton

Do you detect a theme here? I have yet to come across any other presidential candidate in my feed reader today. --Whoops! I'm back to yesterday!

Oh, wait. I did miss this:

Obama singer wins cheers despite protest

A Grammy-winning singer whose role in a Barack Obama campaign event riled gay activists served as master of ceremonies of a gospel concert promoting the Democratic presidential hopeful Sunday night.

I guess that is news. I'm not sure it's good news, though.

Oh, wait. I see the pattern now. Late night Sunday night is the time to post articles about Richardson, Dodd, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Putin -- oops.

Interesting how there are so many invisible candidates.

Ah, but at least the mainstream media are onto their own game.

When it comes to presidential politics, the news media loves front-runners. And seems to hate them, too.

Don't you feel reassured? Doesn't that just make you want to read more mainstream media manufacture?

Oh, and by the way, Ron Paul supporters, nada regarding your man in the past several days, though the "liberal" New York Times found you.

Smugness in mainstream obscurity, apparently. Morons indeed. Ha!

What's absent through all the coverage? Substance. What do the candidates actually say about healthcare? The deficit? National security? Social Security? Global warming? Energy policy? Education?

Not a whole lot. That crap is boring! Or so say the "news" editors of these mainstream outlets.

And of course we'll get a story about how we don't know much about the positions of any of the candidates.

That is what we call "news."

Good night, and good luck!

Presidential candidate John Edwards, the man whose rhetoric implies that it isn't the government's job to fix the mess it made in New Orleans, has talked about the "war on terror" as much as the next politician. But suddenly, he has removed all references to it from his website, and says that the term "has created a frame that is not accurate," and that he now believes there is not really a

Russell Shaw calls for progressives to unite around whatever Democratic Party nominee for president:

I look at this past week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote against "partial birth abortion." Then I hold up the ages of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens (87), and an increasingly feeble Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74) against the actuarial tables.

I just pray these two are able to serve on the Court until that hopefully blessed morning of January 20, 2009.

At Noon on that day, a Democrat will- from my mouse to the Goddess' ears- take the Oath.

I'd love for the oath-taker to be Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. But if it comes down to saving Roe, I'd settle for Hillary. With more campaign funds than her Democratic opponents, her nomination is likely. I can see where Obama will fade, Edwards may need to drop out, and Gore will stay out.

At this point in time, though, I can see a scenario that causes ideological purists on our side of the fence to do something stupid that will cause Hillary to fall short, and thus, pave the path for another anti-choice, Justice-appointng [sic] Republican to get into the White House.

Despite the fact that Russell Shaw is echoing radical right-wing (as well as Markos Moulitsas) talking points about "ideological purity" -- a Rovian expression if I ever heard one -- I can see his point. Just this morning, I was thinking about how any of the top four -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson or even Clinton -- would get my vote. And while I know not nearly enough to choose any one above the others, at this point, my sense is that one of them would suffice for me come November next year.

Making that decision so much easier is the fact that the Republicans have so far offered up boobs, bigots and bobbies. Given the radical and, yes, misogynist and, yes again, racist and, yes, obviously, homophobic values at the core of the right wing, I don't see myself voting for any Republican for president any time soon. Add in their modern penchant for fascistic governmental control over individuals -- making the phrase "the party of Goldwater" an oxymoronic joke -- and I don't see myself voting Republican in my lifetime.

However, Congress is a different matter. Do we continue to vote for pro-forced-pregnancy Democrats? How do we, as progressives, in good conscience cast our lot with men (yes once more, I'm afraid) who consider women's right to privacy to be non-existent, women's medical choices to be controlled by politicians, women's health to be a distraction, women's lives to be important only when not distracting from other interests, and women's bodies to be, ultimately, Property of the U.S. Government?

I wonder how many Democratic and independent voters even realize that their Democratic Senator(s) and/or Representative is an advocate of forced pregnancy.

The question is pertinent right now, pre-primaries, while we look at what kind of future we want to forge in the can't-come-soon-enough post-Bush America. Now is the time to ask the questions. Now is the time to choose. Now is the time to push for the progressives that will defend privacy and equal rights and civil rights and human rights for everyone, not just the ruling men who look upon the rest of us as "peasants."

It's not an easy thing, when the Democratic Party, whose vague favoring of progressive values stands out like a monument to all things noble and just when compared with the venal depravity that describes the power centers of the GOP, has such a slim and weak hold upon Congress.

It's all the more difficult when you consider that men claiming progressive values have historically dismissed our alarms about the Handmaid trends happening in our politics -- our politics. And it sure as heck doesn't help that ignorance and willful ignorance on the part of ostensibly well-intentioned men when it comes to issues women face continue.

The demographics are with us, though. More GOP seats in the Senate are up for election next year. Americans in general are suspicious of an overly invasive Government. And, while meaningful statistics are lacking (at least from what I can tell), based on anecdotal evidence there are quite a number of so-called "pro-life" Americans who oppose abortion until the issue comes home to roost in their own families, in their own lives.

So what's it going to be, boys? When you throw women's lives into the mix, does women's equality count as "important shit"?

As is inevitable in American politics, the election horseraces this past week have been evaluated on the basis of money raised -- all the more so in how the mainstream media is measuring the Democratic contenders. On Barack Obama's numbers, I cannot count how many times I've heard the words "shocking" and "astonishing" on the few television news programs I can stomach.

The numbers aren't really a surprise to me, nor I suspect for anyone who's paying attention to what the people are thinking. The pundits continue to insist on their realities, but here's a milepost where they find themselves way behind the rest of us. We can expect more of that in the coming year.

On other words, the revolution in electoral politics orthodoxy will not be televised. At least not until the mainstream media pull their collective heads out and start paying attention to what the people are saying. It's willful ignorance on their parts -- it's not hard to find alternative views, after all -- but sooner or later they will have to realize that Press Club yuks and K Street cocktail parties don't automatically qualify them as authorities on what the people want.

And the fundraising numbers are a case in point....

On CultureKitchen last Thursday, mole333 wrote:

Some may see it as business as usual, but I see it as a shift in how
politics is functioning. Not a fundamental shift, but still a
significant one.

Well, the demise of the Democratic Party has been predicted for some
time...and when Howard Dean became head of the DNC more people than
ever predicted it would spell doom and destruction for the party of the
Donkey.

Since then, we did unexpectedly well in 2005 elections (NYC aside).
Then in 2006 we kicked ass. Now it is too early to say what 2008 will
bring, but my gut feelings about our candidates vs. their candidates may be playing out in the most important arena there is: fundraising.

On Friday, Kos posted an interesting observation about how Barack Obama's campaign differed so much from Hillary Clinton's, when it came to fundraising and emphasis:

- READ MORE -

No, it's not because so many people already hate her. It's not because she's married to Bill. And no, it's not because she's a woman.

It can be explained in these two paragraphs of insightful truth from David Mixner:

Today, the Clintons run the political machine trying to save the status quo in the Democratic Party. Their fundraising operation is notorious for its ruthlessness and elitism. Their circle of advisors and friends are tough and aggressive with anyone who refuses to pledge allegiance. They are surrounded by money collectors like Terry McAuliffe who shakedown donors with warnings that they will be punished if they give to another candidate. Senator Clinton's position on the Iraq War is by far the most calculated of any candidate. And on so many other issues, her positions are measured and break no new ground. Each appearance is predictable and perfectly arranged. Whether by necessity or choice, the spontaneity, exuberance and hope we saw in both of the Clintons in 1992 is gone.

In many ways, Senator Barack Obama is today's Bill Clinton. Like Clinton in 1992, he is packing arenas with young voters, campaigning in shirtsleeves, and calling America to believe in a new generation of politics. His candidacy stands in stark contrast to the safe predictable status quo Clinton campaign. Unlike Senator Clinton, he understood the consequences of invading Iraq and refused to support the war from day one. Like President Clinton in 1992, he is mobilizing thousands of cynical and disenfranchised voters and welcoming them back into the Democratic Party.

He goes on about Edwards, too. Read the whole thing.

Oh, and someone tell the mainstream media.

read more