feminist blogs

You know the election primaries are close when Kos starts his strident howls:

Psst, Barack, slamming John Kerry and Al Gore is what Republicans do. Not Democrats.

Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event (rush transcript).

Funny, that. Last time I checked, Gore won his election. And really, is Obama going to argue now that the nation was divide because of the Democrats' fault? Is that the latest right-wing talking point he wants to peddle?

Huh? Is either Gore or Kerry running now? Why shouldn't he distinguish himself from losing party bids of yore? What next? Don't speak ill of Andrew Johnson or Grover Cleveland?

The fact is that the Al Gore of 2000 was pretty pathetic. Remember, this was the pre-"Inconvenient" Al Gore. This was the Al Gore whose campaign had demonstrated public angst over whether he should wear blue jeans or Dockers. This was the Al Gore who didn't seem to know who he was. It was his election to lose, and it was close enough to lose, one way or another. Any decisive win wouldn't have let the Supreme Court's meddling happen.

And serious, John Kerry? There are many reasons why John Kerry did not win the election. One....

I think that maybe the one sounding like a Republican is Kos with his nervous nellie cries. He cites Edwards flack Joe Trippi as an authority on the subject.

Joe Trippi, a senior strategist for John Edwards, blasted Barack Obama's field program in Iowa on New Year's Eve, bluntly rebutting the Obama Campaign's attempt to promote its large crowds as a sign of momentum in the homestretch. "If the crowd numbers are that huge, and ours are this small, and they're going to kick our ass then there's no reason to explain it. Just show up and kick our ass. It's better if you don't say anything about it," said Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale. "Anytime anybody starts throwing those kinds of things around, it's because they're in deep shit," he told The Nation.

Kos then does the two-sides-of-the-mouth thing:

Obama's recent embrace of right-wing talking points and wholesale embracing of Broderite "Unite 08" talking points suggests that he's giving up on Iowa and playing to the independent vote in New Hampshire. He has to stay close in Iowa to remain viable in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure why else he would decide to shit on Democrats at such a rapid clip these past few days.

Yeah, Democrats. Don't "shit on Democrats." Got it? Unless they're actually running, that is. Yep.

And here I thought Senator Lieberman was a long-suffering, misunderstood Democrat.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2000 and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said back in June that he could "definitely" see himself endorsing a Republican candidate for president in 2008. This morning in New Hampshire, he's scheduled to make it official.

In an appearance on the "Today" show this morning, Republican Sen. John McCain confirmed reports that he has scored Lieberman's endorsement. As Walter Shapiro notes, it's not exactly a surprise: Both men are strong supporters of the war in Iraq -- Lieberman more resolutely so than McCain, actually -- and Lieberman hinted at his choice back in June when he said he wanted to "talk straight" about his alignment with "the leading Republican candidates ... on the defining issue of our time."

What does it mean? .... the Lieberman endorsement will raise talk again about whether Lieberman will begin caucusing with Senate Republicans; encourage speculation about the possibility of a split ticket for 2008 --John Kerry has said that McCain's people approached him about the possibility of running together in 2004; and cause Democrats who despise Joe Lieberman already to despise him all over again.

Yeah, that's because people expect you to do what you say and say what you mean.

Hey Joe, looks like Kos was right about you all along.

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"?

There is a strangeness in Washington as we return to the two-party system. Like Moses leading his people in the wilderness, the Democrats are slowly returning to power. Was it any different in 1994 when the tables were turned?

The conservatives say, at least in some circles, that the Republican defeat was not all that bad and in two years the people will come to their senses and re-elect a Republican government like we've had since 2000. Perhaps. But, that's not the interesting story.

For two years, we will have a different voice in Congress and this will be a chance for the Democrats to re-frame the issues.

I think of when Rush Limbaugh could be a foil against a Democrat Congress, or at least against President Clinton, and though he had his own personal problems, I think what really killed it for him was that the Republicans got into power. His rage really had no place to go, except kicking the people who weren't in power.

Now the strangeness comes back. The two-party system might have a chance, and two of the first losers are Steven Colbert of the "Colbert Report," and to some extent Kos of "The Daily Kos." "Does their schtick still work?" asked a friend. The Daily Show is not as invested as Kos and Colbert in the brand of anger in the case of Kos and humor in the case of Colbert.

I don't go to Kos any more, but I have peeked in on and off, more on than off, on Colbert, and suddenly his feigned right-wing stance falls flat. Nothing against Steve. It's just that in a matter of a week, the entire humor base has shifted along with the power base. In the case of Colbert, his humor worked when the Republicans were the only party in real power and his feigned support was great counterpoint. Now the Republicans are a minority in Congress (slim though it may be) and the President is a lame duck. Not as funny to be a feigned zealot.

Colbert and Kos suffer the fall out. Their base has a place to go for real power, just as Rush found out.

We'll see where Washington goes in the next several months, but the new balance of power has unexpected consequences in the strangest of ways.