I’ve seen a number of critiques of the Beck-Palin phenomenon lately that attribute The Rise of the Silver Slurpers to a simple longing for leadership in these tumultuous times. There was this NYT op-ed over the weekend by Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister, lefty feminists pining for “A Palin of Our Own.”
Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics.
The left’s failure to nurture and celebrate female politicians has had a significant effect on its policies. In recent years, Democratic majorities and progressive legislation seem to have been built on steady trade-offs of reproductive rights, culminating this year when the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was forced to push through health care reform with a compromise on abortion financing.
An older generation of female Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi, are about as eager to mount a Palin-style girl-powered campaign as they are to wear a miniskirt on the House floor. For them, proudly or aggressively touting one’s feminist credentials (if you’re actually a feminist, that is) is taboo. It’s considered too, well, female.
I call bullshit on this. First of all, let’s look at the examples they cited: Clinton, Pelosi and Palin. Hillary Clinton is arguably the most powerful woman on the planet, busily running the foreign policy apparatus of the world’s only super power. Nancy Pelosi is the only female Speaker of the House—ever—and a highly effective legislator in that role by any objective measure. And Sarah Palin is…an occasional Fox News contributor, a former second-fiddle on a losing presidential ticket and a half-term governor who quit every important job she ever held.
Sorry, ladies, but I’ll match our record up with the GOP’s on women’s leadership any day of the week. Sure, Palin has a creepily devoted fan base and scads of Facebook friends. So does Lady Gaga. And Lady Gaga has more progressive policy chops.
Two years ago tonight, I wasn’t on Rumproast, so I can only conclude I was shaving the cats, out stealing yard signs or teaching my weekly ACORN class in Physical Intimidation & Document Forgery. But had I known Hillary Clinton was about to deliver the most impassioned endorsement of Barack Obama by any respected public figure, ever, I’d have popped a tape in the VCR and set the Signal Decoder to “Orange.”
They used her to kill Universal Health Care (both times). They used her to beat up her husband. They used her to undermine anti-war Liberals. They used her to demonize powerful women. They used her to bash “entitled Eastern elitists.” They used her to burnish the dull and pitted public images of John McCain and Newt Gingrich. They’ve used her to argue that US foreign policy since 2009 is weak, disjointed, directionless and Israel-phobic. They’ve used her “Alinsky connection” to cast even the most uncontroversial Liberal initiatives as “radicalism.” And now, they’re using her to help enfeebled RINOs and febrile Tea Partiers run against the Obama Administration in the 2010 mid-terms.
After a decade or two, you think they’d come up with a new gimmick. But at this point, it’s so routine, so predictable and such a venerable electoral tradition that it’s like watching a dear old drunken friend run over your dog in the driveway at Christmas—just like he does every year, right before he knocks over the tree and pees in the punch bowl.
Some “Liberals” (and you can guess which ones) are giddy at the sight of Hillary being used, yet again, to kick them in the ass and steal their candy.
It’s not like I have high expectations: The “liberal media” outlet very often resembles Open Mike Night at Miss Huffington’s Home for Hairspray Huffing Hacks.
The HuffPo line-up includes can’t-write-her-way-out-of-a-bowl-of-bean-curd Clinton fetishist Taylor Marsh. Then there’s Lady-Lynn-de-Poopchute-panty-sniffer Amy Siskind. Hell, there’s even BushCo bag man Ken Blackwell—all find a platform at HuffPo because god forbid Fox hogs all the nutbaggery.
But now the site has outdone the combined efforts of even those luminaries by publishing the “Diary of First Lady Michelle Obama” by Laura Ingraham, who is angling to supplant Ann Coulter as the She Wolverine of the teatard set. If you’re familiar with Ingrahamagram’s oeuvre, the piece is about what you’d expect. An excerpt:
Gulf Coast!?! To think I had to waste an afternoon (cut my workout short and everything) to make those Tea Baggers along the Gulf Coast think we give a damn. It’s one thing to go down to Diddy’s or Kanye’s house on Star Island in Miami, but Panama City is a disaster. This place is known for one thing: endless strip malls. Do I look like I shop at Payless Shoes? This is supposed to be our vacation time and I’m blowing half my day in a hell hole like Panama City!!
But what could I do? Axe, Rahm and the rest of the gang told me if we wanted to vacation in Maine this week, one of us had to go placate the oiled up yahoos down South. I’m still mad that Barack had to interrupt our Memorial Day weekend in Chicago to sympathetically stroke some greasy pelicans! But I suppose I must do my part. But I needed this trip like Hillary needs an extra fifteen pounds of thigh fat.
Honestly, I think we’ve done all we can for the Gulf Coast. On my way out of town I even stopped by the Pink Pelican Ice Cream Bar to enjoy a luscious treat called the “Chocolate Hurricane.” (I have to remember to e-mail Ray Nagin about that one.)
Emphasis mine. Aside from an elevated count of sexist, honky-harpy dog-whistles, it’s pretty unremarkable stuff. The only puzzling thing is that HuffPo posted it in the “Comedy” section instead of under “Politics,” which is a bit like covering the Jeffrey Dahmer trial in the “Food” section.
I was going to offer an Ingrahamagram parody diary as a counterpoint, but you know what? Fuck it. Ingraham is not only NOT worth the effort, she’s fully self-parodying and therefore a singularly unrewarding subject.
...so you’re going to have to entertain yourselves by checking out one of the dumbest rivalries in the history of the internets: The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind (and her commenters) vs. Human Event’s Jason Mattera. It’s kinda like what a war between Andrew Dice Clay and Monty Python’s Hell’s Grannies would be like if everyone was huffing ether and repeatedly running headfirst into brick walls. Or something. I mean, you try to explain how some of the brainiacs from TNA seem to think Jason Mattera is a disillusioned Democrat or what in the hell this means:
She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.
Oh, but then she goes and spoils it:
Most important, were she vice president and Obama were for some reason not able to fulfill his term, she would be ready to step in.
Um, is there something you’re not telling us, Sally? Did Joe Biden hurt you? Does Hillary have the Birth Certificate? Or are you just prudently factoring in the withering effects of continuous attacks from the Right and the Left on fragile, skinny Mr. Obama’s health?
Sophie B. Hawkins jumps over Obama’s bus, but unfortunately most of her pants don’t make it.
According to The Hill the political opinions of a washed-up adult-contemporary pseudo-hippy qualify as “news.” Has anyone checked in with other one-hit wonders from the 90’s like Right Said Fred or Lou Bega?:
Singer Sophie B. Hawkins told The Hill on Thursday that “America’s being thrown under the bus” by President Barack Obama as he presses forward with his agenda and comes under criticism for his response to the Gulf oil spill. [...]
The singer campaigned on the trail with Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential campaign, and told The Hil from her tour bus that she “never believed in [Obama’s] philosophy”—which she said runs contrary to her beliefs in “smaller government, smart government, flexible government.”
“I think the writing was on the wall,” Hawkins said. “I honestly couldn’t believe so many people were into him.”
She describes herself as a centrist who’s identified with the Democratic and Green parties, but said even though she’s never been Republican she wouldn’t cross that vote off the list if the right leader came along.
In fact, she’s open to a Republican Congress.
“I want the Congress that really is going to listen to the people,” she said. “I really don’t care what party it is anymore.”
Hawkins said she attended a Tea Party rally in Santa Monica, Calif., that was “mostly all Democrats.”
“The Tea Parties are only here because people are not listening,” she said.
The singer said she viewed the government’s attitude as “arrogant” and said people are hungry for leaders who will “take us in a direction that’s truly American.”
Hawkins also complained that Obama doesn’t make her feel like moving her life up another level:
...but, c’mon, it’s pretty funny that Bill Clinton was the one asking Joe Sestak to drop out. The only thing that would have been better was if they waited until the 31st (hint, hint) to release the info.
Fox Nation readers respond as thoughtfully as you might expect:
She dress’s up in Communist clothing because she is Communist!
How could they dress up a pig as Mao like that! How insulting!
Ol Moa actually looks pretty sexy compared to ol Ironcrotch
[I bet every one of those slack-jawed morans was sitting at the keyboard in a Chinese-made Walmart shirt—the ones who were clothed, anyway.]
But here’s the thing, and perhaps it only occurs to me because I haven’t been conditioned to produce buckets of Pavlovian rage-drool at the sight of Hillary Clinton: The supposedly identical jackets actually…aren’t:
—Single breasted vs double breasted —Pointy collar vs tab style —Pockets vs no pockets —Tailored fit vs non-tailored style
In fact, the jackets are about as dissimilar as two garments that serve the same function can be. Well, the buttons are kinda alike, I guess. Maybe. It’s hard to tell.
The colors might be similar, but it’s not possible to tell since the Mao photo is black and white. In the color photos I’ve seen of him, Mao appeared to favor olive-drab rather than gray, so that’s probably a bogus point of comparison too.
Anyway, Fox Nation tells ginormous, whopping lies about fashion, along with everything else. And their readers must totally suck at the “Spot the Difference” puzzle in the Sunday comics. But you knew that.
The tiny, utterly ineffectual, re-branded group of elitist Clinton dead-enders that pretends to be “a voice for all women” claims victory yet again for another event on which they had no influence:
We Did it!!! DCCC Pulls Out of Hawaii Special Election!
May 10, 2010
by The New Agenda
We did it!
The New Agenda spoke out when the DCCC backed a white male candidate in the Hawaii Special Election over State Senator Colleen Hanabusa. The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind wrote over at The Huffington Post:
CBS News also picked up that The New Agenda was speaking out!
Well, it worked! Today the DCCC has pulled out of Hawaii’s Special Election! We commend the DCCC for pulling out and no longer putting a woman candidate at an unfair disadvantage.
What actually happened is that DCCC operatives looked at the polling data and realized the two Democrats in the race will split the vote and allow the Republican candidate to win, so they stopped wasting their money.
Since a new election will be held within six months, resulting in a single Democrat running (and almost certainly winning) against the GOP candidate in this solidly blue district, it probably makes sense for the DCCC to cut their losses in the special election.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested this morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be nominated to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court.
The Utah Republican, a high-ranking GOPer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, implied that Clinton could be a strong nominee.
“I even heard the name Hillary Clinton today, and that would be an interesting person in the mix,” Hatch said on the “Today Show.”
“I happen to like Hillary Clinton, I think she’s done a good job for the Democrat Secretary of State’s position. And I have high respect for her, and think a great deal of her.”
Hillary getting the nod might not have seemed likely around the time of Obama’s first pick (Sotomayor), but now that conventional wisdom has her bowing out of SecState after one term, this seems a helluva lot more likely. Also, why in the hell would Hatch throw out her name like that? It appears that he caught wind of something pertinent. I don’t see his comments as being politically motivated, but I may be missing something. We’ll have to wait and see. I’m all for it because a) I think she’d make a great Justice and b) it’ll drive the deadenders crazy figuring out how to spin it (“The One is only doing it so she won’t run against him in 2012!!!”). It’s a win-win for me (and America).
Yesterday, self-described “writer” and “political analyst” Taylor Marsh asked, “Where’s the Left’s Sarah Palin?” John Cole provided an excellent response here.
But I’d like to elaborate on one facet of Marsh’s multifaceted failure to get it—a point that seems to elude not only Marsh but many others who are mooning over the fact that right now, the wingnuts’ most potent political draw has a pair of ovaries and the alleged progress this represents. Says Marsh:
There remains a “Hillary hole,” with women wanting their turn, while people hunger for something radically different, which is currently being filled by the Tea Party, a star named Sarah and her fans…
The “Hillary hole” is as wide and deep for Democrats as ever, with no Sarah Palin alternative anywhere in sight.
[WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG POST FOR THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: “Abjure alliteration’s artful aid.” Marsh keeps returning to mourn at the edge of this “Hillary hole,” and she should stop it—for Hillary’s own sweet sake. If Marsh must alliterate, she could call it the “Clinton crater” or something. Anything but “Hillary hole.” Please. WE NOW RESUME THIS BLOG POST, ALREADY IN PROGRESS.]
What Marsh in missing—call it a “comprehension hole” if you’d like—is the role Palin’s looks play in her wingnut appeal. Marsh doesn’t mention it even once in her “analysis,” which is like trying to understand the Confederacy without factoring in slavery—a mistake, as Bob McDonnell learned this week.
Ask yourself this: Would anyone on the right give a shit what Palin said if she looked like Olympia Snowe? Nope.
