Two of these men will NOT be voting for Obama

Shown: Bush 41 with his staff on the White House lawn, circa 1991.

1. With all the old whitey guys saying it was a racial thang, I was waiting all day yesterday for Al Sharpton or somesuch to come out and say Colin Powell isn't black enough to endorse Obama.

2. Brent Scowcroft has been book touring with future Secretary of State (or whatever position he wants) Zbigniew Brzezinski about their co-authored book "Undoing The Total Fuck-up of Bush 43's Foreign Policy for Dummies". Okay it's not called that but it's the same thing. According to Zbig, Snowcroft has not given "any explicit words of support" to McCain. Huffpo adds that Snowcroft "has settled on a policy of 'neutrality' in the presidential contest between Obama and McCain." Yeah.

3. Robert Gates is the current Secretary of Defense, but apparently he was brought in by some Bush 41 cabal folks (replacing Rummy) to temper Junior's ass-holiness. He's been called the only adult in the current cabinet, and it's also reported that he has almost single-handedly put a stop to the "let's invade Iran" talk in the White House. There are even rumors that Obama might keep him on. Keith Olbermann take note: I guess we're not supposed to call him Mister Iran-Contra after that.

4. Does Cheney have the heart (sorry) to vote against his own economic interests? He never has before...

5. Dan Quayle has too much in common with the current Vice Presidential candidate not to support her, plus, she is the only person in the history of the world to make him look competent.

6. James Baker openly agreed with Obama's stand of talking to Iran. I'm amazed at how easy it is to find these guys dissing McCain in a public interview, even if it means I'm heavy on the Arianna links. You're welcome for the traffic, Mrs. H.

7. I would spend an extra week in this cast if I could know how Bush 41 is going to vote this year. But I'll bet you my Techorati rating that the McCain mob videos turned his stomach. Those aren't his kind of people, let alone his kind of Republicans. And lots of his friends at The Club will be voting based on a specific understanding of class on November 4. This time, that means voting for the gentleman, rather than for the bum.

In which I find myself defending her.

Two columnists this week have treated Senator Clinton unfairly, to say the least:

I wrote about this at a bigger blog but Michael Kinsley's oped about how long it takes Hillary Clinton to get ready in the morning and isn't it unfair that women's looks count more than men's...please. Some readers didn't see a problem with this article but here's my take: there is NO reason to bring up the makeup issue in the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Kinsey is writing a piece on fluffy gender differences rather than political realities because he hasn't a clue. Painting it over with the "life is unfair" conclusion does not excuse the intimation that Senator Clinton will lose valuable sleep because her LOOKS matter more than the other candidates. Why didn't they tell that to Golda Meir and Maggie Thatcher?

I think this is an area, particularly in terms of media analysis, where reasonable people can disagree. But I don't trust that Kinsley was making a straight statement about media fairness where Senator Clinton is concerned. He was bringing up issues of looks and vanity and image handling to infect the discourse, in my opinion. I'm not a Hillary supporter, and this article struck me as pandering to sexism.

Then there's Maureen Dowd, and yeah, she should change her name to "Maureen Dowd, heavy sigh why does she have her job."

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

EVEN IF Dowd had not put McCain's name in the same sentence as the prediction of Clinton's age, seriously what the hell is Dowd thinking?

MCCAIN IS SEVENTY-TWO, FOR FRAK'S SAKE.

I mentioned this to some fellow bloggers, one of whom was so bold as to make the "it's different for girls" argument. Somehow Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir are allowed to be older successful women politicians, but what, Hillary is too pretty for that? Or not tough enough? Or what? What?

I'm not the only NYTimes reader who ain't buying that.



_____________________________

While we're on the subject of Senator Clinton, here is a juxtaposition I would like folks to think about. I seriously think it's time for Mister Dean to start spanking, if not some candidates than some state party chairs. Michigan and Florida broke the party rules. Deliberately. Very deliberately. Senator Clinton respected those rules by not campaigning in either contest, good on her. What is with this?



Does Senator Clinton write the rules? Just asking.

Okay, okay, some election stuff.

This is a story told in chunks but they all flow into one another. I hope.

I remember as a teenager my dad took me to hear Julian Bond speak. Why yes, I was raised right, thank you. After his talk JB told the audience he would be happy to take questions provided they did not begin with the words, "isn't it true that...". People who begin their so-called questions with "isn't it true that" either want to give a speech, and have the speaker agree with them, or they want to argue. Julian Bond did not want to do either one.

So I was reminded of Julian Bond when I heard recounted a talk given by a visiting professor in the "Women and Religion" teaching program while I was at Harvard Divinity School in the 80's. Visiting Professor talked with a group about her research in women and religion in American Literature. When it was time for questions the woman in charge of the talk (and also the teaching program so she was sort of the visiting professor's boss) got the ball rolling:

"Isn't it true that the Women's Movement in the '60's was the greatest thing that ever happened to you?"

Okay, you're going to think I'm making that up. But that is how the visiting professor parphrased it to me, verbatim.

Visiting Professor says she replied that she was really not involved in the women's movement. She was involved in the anti-war movement, pretty heavily, and while that's not a conflict with the women's movement...well, at least it wasn't in the '80's.



Woman in charge persisted. "But the women's movement gave you permission to take your place in the anti-war movement, right?"

That clanking sound you heard in 1987 was my then-overplucked eyebrows hitting the ceiling. Anyone who knows the history of the '60's knows that women getting treated like shit in the anti-war and civil rights movements helped instigate a lot of anger which was turned positively and forcefully into women's rights activism.

The hostess of this academic shindig was not interested in historical fact or the anti-war movement. She was interested in advancing the cause, her cause, and possibly even a good cause, at the expense of everything else.



Then last night...a library book award dinner thingy. One of the head librarians was there, and I was sitting next to her husband, a charming old southerner who stood up when a lady did, etc. Librarian, an otherwise very cooth white woman in her sixties, was gobama Al-obama mo'bama dang!



Husband said, "yes, we're a mixed marriage."

Me: You're a Republican?

He: A proud one since I was five years old.

And inside I'm screaming, Oh sweet Jeebus rock candy on a stick.

But then I figure, I'm already sitting here pretending all kinds of things so why not pretend to be nice? He's beyond hope, not trying to convert me, and too old to matter, so I keep my charms about me. There was actually still a Republican race going on during the Alabama primary so I ask him politely how he cast his ballot.

"I voted for Hillary."

And inside I'm screaming, Oh sweet baby Jeebus rock candy on a stick.

You did this because...

Wife: Oh yes, he wants McCain to run against Hillary.

He: But I don't like McCain. Not a bit.

And inside I'm screaming, Oh sweet baby Jeebus Holy Ghost rock candy on a stick.



And then I had another big swig of that luscious Italian Valpulciano Red and I stopped caring altogether. And I don't care about what Taylor Marsh thinks about nuking Iran or expanding NAFTA either. Because I don't think she's thinking about that at all when she says things like the last three sentences of this post.

Please, Ms. Marsh, woman to woman, you're driving me to drink more red wine than is healthy.

One more thing. Under no circumstances do I give Obama a big ol' pass on anything. I agree with those who say he is deliberately vague on issues. I despise his "reach across the aisle to Republicans" mumbo-jumbo. He is the fourth candidate I have supported in this election cycle. And I won't vote for a third party candidate or support draft movements or any other silliness come November. Should she be the nominee, President Clinton will get the Hell blogged out of her right here after I vote for her. And just try to stop me when I get "uppity" about the Beltway Democrats. Sigh.

And I don't want anyone thinking I don't want a woman President. I certainly do. I'd like to vote for this one, for instance, and maybe after she gets eight years of White House experience, I'll have my chance. I wonder whether then she'll get Taylor Marsh's undying and unending support.



And while I usually keep my comment thread policy as liberal as my politics, don't nobody talk trash about Michelle.

Reason enough for me.

I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because Tucker Carlson likes him. Kudos on getting the stripper turned libertarian-county-chairman vote, though.

Great night for Dennis the K.

Apparently this is Jello Biafra. Image from here.

Although if Special K couldn't do well with a fecking UNION audience, he might as well hang it up.

I'm so sick of the media and others saying he can't win so don't vote for him. This isn't American Idol. It's our country, dammit. The Republicans have won and won and won because they convinced a lot of sheep that if they supported the GOP they would be "voting their values." Why can't we Democrats do the same?

You're against this war? Vote Kucinich.

You hate that our health care system is run by insurance and pharmaceutical conglomerates? Vote Kucinich.

You think American workers should be able to have that old fashioned thing called "collective bargaining" and the "right to strike"?

Geez Louise. Is that an issue of debate in 2007? Hanging my head here.

Manila? You're kidding about missing Mike Gravel at that thing, aren't you?

UPDATE: GOTTA include this. Gotta.