Patricia DeGennaro on The Second Debate

Cross posted from Tricia’s Take:

Presidential Debate Number 2 Redo

Last night’s Presidential debate was a rehash of the same old. Senators Obama and McCain pretty much just repeated the same things they said last time. Although I somehow understand that we all have to repeat ourselves, personally I get kind of tired of reruns.

Obama to his credit tried to add a few extra details on why it is imperative that the US start rethinking and changing its economic and international policies. Despite his efforts the nations people still seem to be hanging on to outdated plans.

Unfortunately, McCain, to his detriment, is hanging on dearly to a security blanket that should have been shed years ago. He says he doesn’t want a cold war, but his rhetoric truly proves otherwise. As a national security specialist, I can tell you that he may be saying what the people want to hear, but I’m sorry to say he is not being straight with them.

We are in a dangerous position as a nation. Yes, we have the strongest military in the world - as we should. However, that military has been pushed to its limits. Our soldiers have not only been doing double duty, they have been doing three to four tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thousands of soldiers have been killed and injured. The Army itself must replace hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment destroyed in these wars.

The abundance of information on this topic is not news to our allies or our enemies. Continually threatening people may get us in more trouble than it is worth.

Keeping this in mind and keeping in mind America’s economic woes, it is time for us to realize we need to change the way we do business at home and abroad.

Senator McCain seems to be stuck in some lost concept between global hegemony and a cold war super power. He believes that the US should continue to bully other nations into doing what he says. He thinks that somehow this blatantly combative oratory is going to make nations cower. I am sorry to tell him this just is not happening and it is not going to change anytime soon.

In today’s world when nations are threatening to produce nuclear weapons, the US must move beyond its own addiction to a weapons only strategy. After all they want them, because we have them and we are threatening to use them every day.

No expert will tell you that the US can maintain its current military dominance especially when our purse is now running low. We need new ideas, new innovations, and new thinking. And last night’s debate demonstrated that there is no way were are going to get them from John McCain.

Marianne Schnall has a great new interview on Feminist.com with Elizabeth Lesser, co-founder of the Omega Institute, about her work with the Institute, her books, and her recent 10 week “webinar” produced with Oprah Winfrey for the new Eckhart Tolle book. Check it out!

Tonight on Sirius Stars Channel 102, WMC co-founder Robin Morgan and Progressive Women’s Voices participant Courtney E. Martin join veteran journalist Lynn Sherr for a special live report called “The New Feminism.” They will be joined by Ellen Goodman, Gail Collins, Sally Quinn, Kay Hmyowitz, Ronnee Schreiber, and Christina Hoff Sommers. This one-time LIVE special airs from 6 - 7 p.m. EST tonight, October 7. Non-Sirius subscribers can sign up for a free 3-day trial in order to listen here.

From Kristen Loveland at Girl with Pen:

At a rally on Saturday in California, Sarah Palin offered up what Nico Pitney at Huffinton Post calls a rather “jarring” comment, and which I would term as offensive and mind-boggling on a variety of levels (though given the current McCain/Palin strategy, we shouldn’t be surprised). To a cheering crowd, she claimed to be quoting former Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright when she said:

“There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.”

In a GWP post last week, Virginia Rutter told us why she wouldn’t sign those “women against Palin” emails, as she believes “the ‘women against’ gambit feeds into the identity politics of Sarah Palin that make her so damn scary. Ironically, by mounting a ‘women against’ campaign, we make her a ‘woman’s candidate.’”

And how right she is. In fact she has Albright to back her up, who responded to the misquote (the right word is “help” not “support” and was a comment on society, not politics) with the following: “This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women.”

But given that Palin has herself brought it up, I think it’s fair game to point out the significant ways in which Palin has not supported women throughout her political career. I would like to note that this is not a response by me as a woman; it is a response by me as a voter who cares deeply about issues that affect women.

Continue reading “Am I Going to Hell?”

In response to passionate comments both pro and con on my previous post “What Did Sarah Learn?”, I have been thinking a lot about why it matters that Sarah Palin uses her looks, her cutesy down-home phrases, her flirty moves. All politicians use whatever it is they’ve got to appeal to voters, after all.

In fact, each and every one of us uses whatever we’ve got to appeal to our “publics”, even if that’s only to negotiate who’s cooking dinner tonight within our immediate families.

Goodness knows, I use my Texas sayings and small town upbringing all the time in my speeches and writing. I do it to engage people, because I like those stories, and because it authentically shares a lot about who I am. I also own up to wearing lipstick, and I have a penchant for clothing that is both tailored and just a tad funky, like Sarah Palin’s black suit, severe but for the peplum flourish.

In our society, it is well known if not well acknowledged that physical appearance makes a big difference in how positively we are received by others, however fair or unfair that may be. And that there is always some element of sexual tension in attractiveness, however, much we might try to take that out of the equation.

But the real issue is that Sarah uses her style and uses it brazenly to cover up for utter lack of substance. I don’t mean that she’s not smart–she’s plenty smart to have amassed the power she has and to have won the elections she has won. In the big boy power games, as she did in high school basketball, she has always excelled, and as I said in previous posts and comments, you do have to respect her for that.

But power devoid of empathy is dangerous. Power devoid of information is dangerous. Power devoid of actions for the good of others is amoral if not immoral. Power devoid of the honesty and/or perhaps the ability to answer reporters’ questions is devastating to the integrity of the political process. It corrupts, makes a mockery, of democracy.

Abraham Lincoln’s personal narrative of small town, humble beginnings and self-taught law education is revered, not for their own sake but because his political actions served the public good. I see absolutely nothing in Palin’s “accomplishments” except an opportunistic march to power for its own sake. I see much to fear and to fight in the political philosophy to which she has hitched her wagon. I see deliberate dishonesty in her brassy rejection of Gwen Ifill’s debate questions.

The big question raised by Sarah Palin’s candidacy (and John McCain’s choice of her for a running mate) is this: In our Rovian world, where George W. Bush got away with the artful dodge so blatantly–and with the complicity of the mainstream media– have we become so inured to this corrupted way of evaluating people for public office that we’re going to let the right wing get away once again with electing yet another vessel for their mean-spirited agenda?

I say voters’ answer to that this time around must be a resounding “No!”

cross posted from http://www.GloriaFeldt.com/hearteldt-politics-blog

The frisky pit bull bounded out of her debate camp confinement, lipstick glistening under the PBS staging lights. Her black suit might have echoed Susan B. Anthony, were it not for the decidedly un-serious peplum that added a not so subtle, curtsy-cute feminine flourish.

But then nothing about Sarah Palin is either subtle or uncalculated. Just as her glittering rhinestone flag pin, ten times the size of the one on ol’ “Say it ain’t so, Joe” Biden’s lapel, intended to telegraph “I’m a red-blooded, patriotic all-American girl”, her perky (Red Bull enhanced?), “Hey, kin I call ya Joe?” aimed squarely to disarm both her audience and her debate adversary.

I mean, what was Biden going to say? “No, honey, call me Senator Biden”?

She certainly knew full well her political future and that of her presidential running mate John McCain hung in no small measure on her performance at this, the only vice-presidential debate. To that end, she had practiced forcefully spitting out her most emotion-laden words like “maverick!” the Republican red meat “tax cuts!” or the ultimate epithet “Washington DC!”, even while flashing a shining smile. And she looked absolutely gleeful when she got to pounce on Biden’s promise that “We will end this war” applause line with her obviously practiced sound bite: “Your plan is the white flag of surrender.”

Palin is a fierce competitor, as her high school basketball teammates knew when they nicknamed her Sarah Barracuda. If you’re a feminist, you’ve got to love the way this woman embraces her powers, both the power of her physical attractiveness and the power of her current political opportunity to become America’s first female vice president. It’s pretty heady, even for someone who said, when told she might become governor someday, that she’d really rather be president. You can’t blame her for going full bore for the brass ring.

The chattering classes used the word “spirited” often in describing the tone and tenor of the debate, and most concluded that Palin didn’t knock it out of the ballpark, but her performance kept McCain-Palin in the game. That was no surprise, since the format agreed to had been designed to favor her particular strengths.

To me, the only real surprise in this debate was how well Biden did. Republican strategist David Gergen said it was the best performance of his life.

Most of the pre-debate speculation had centered on whether Palin would measure up. I was frankly much more worried that Biden would be too smart for his own good—that he would display his deep knowledge and experience as Al Gore did in 2000, and afterward find himself characterized as arrogant. People like perky a lot more than they like arrogant. And if they don’t like you, it doesn’t matter how smart you are; you won’t get elected.

More than once at Senate hearings, I’ve seen Biden become testy and condescending with women. Anita Hill is a case well known, but I myself have been pointed to publicly by Biden and excoriated for insisting that the Senate Democrats shouldn’t roll over and confirm George Bush’s judicial nominees without evaluating whether their judicial philosophy is consistent with American principles of justice and equality for all, including women.

That why Biden’s reply to debate moderator Gwen Ifill’s question, “Can you bring up a single policy issue where you had to change your position over time due to changed circumstances?” was to me the pivotal point of the debate. It spoke volumes about the man’s character, his principles, and his willingness to learn.

“Yes,” he said without skipping a beat.

I was of the view that the only criteria for judges is judicial temperament, had not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitide…. It took about five years for me to learn that the ideology of that judge does matter

That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.

In contrast, Pit Bull Palin answered that same question by referring in her usual generalities to compromises she had struck in state government.

He went immediately to a question of principle; she went to a question of expedience.

Ever the calculating competitor, for Palin the game is simply about winning. In this debate, Palin certainly lived to compete another day. But Biden won the debate hands down on his humanity and on his substance.

You betcha.

Cross posted from Heartfeldt Politics

Check out www.GloriaFeldt.com

It was a big week for women in the media: Gwen Ifill moderated the Vice Presidential debate Thursday night; Katie Couric’s series of interviews with Sarah Palin mesmerized the public; and Tina Fey solidified her position as a leading political satirist.

Some 70 million people tuned in to watch the Biden-Palin debate, surpassing the McCain-Obama match-up the week before by almost 18 million, and matching the highest rated Presidential debate — Clinton-Bush-Perot — in 1992.

The contretemps over Ifill’s impartiality (raised by some over her upcoming book on the election) seemed to dissipate as a result of the fast paced format. For those who thought she gave both candidates a pass on rigorous questioning, Ifill on Sunday’s Meet the Press maintained she had fulfilled her role as moderator–but, she said, Biden was debating McCain, and Palin was sticking to her talking points. In fact, said Ifill, Palin quite frankly “blew me off.”

Tina Fey proved on NBC’s Saturday Night Live that she is at the top of her game. Fey as Palin and Queen Latifa as Ifill brilliantly recreated the debate. Fey entered singular territory at the Emmy’s recently: winning awards for producing, writing and starring in the show she created, 30 Rock.

For serious analysis and commentary on the debate, see our Progressive Women’s Voices participant Dr. Avis Jones-deWeever, director of the Research, Public Policy, and Information Center for African American Women (http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/100308_a.html) and the WMC’ s DC correspondent Peg Simpson (http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/100308_b.html).

WORKING WOMEN’S MOVEMENT: National Press Conference
Two of our PWV participants, Ellen Bravo, Coordinator of the Multi-State Working Families Consortium (1 million members) and Kristen Rowe-Finkbeiner , co-founder and Executive Director of MomsRising (150,000 members) held a briefing for reporters across the country last week, presenting the case for paid sick days, equal pay and flexibility in the workplace. They were joined by leading pollster Celinda Lake and Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women and Families. The session was moderated by the WMC’s VP Glennda Testone and you can listen to the news conference here: www.kelleycampaigns.com/workingwomencall.html

SHOW ME THE WOMEN: An Update
A thank-you to everyone who submitted questions for the final Presidential debate on October 15th at Hofstra University with Bob Schieffer moderating. We received over 300 really thoughtful, probing questions (including from New Moon readers, girls 8-12) and sent off ten of the most representative to the CBS anchor. As you know, we have been protesting the fact that only men were selected as moderators for the final three debates. We will continue our campaign for fair inclusion of women and people of color in the media.
Visit our campaign page for updates: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/show_me_the_women.html

The WMC’s Robin Morgan and PWV participant Courtney Martin: On the radio
Be sure to listen to ABC’s Lynn Sherr tomorrow night–she has a special radio program on The New Feminism, a one-time special live SIRIUS radio show airing October 7, 2008 from 6:00 - 7:00 pm ET on SIRIUS Stars channel 102. Columnists Ellen Goodman and Gail Collins are among the panelists discussing feminism and the vote…just before Obama-McCAin debate #2. A don’t miss!
http://www.sirius.com/siriusstars

Join us as we work to make women visible & powerful in the media. Your donation and support are greatly appreciated. DONATE: https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/937/t/4935/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=3691

WMC BLOGGING SESSIONS: Sign Up Now
WMC is pleased to offer, in conjunction with one of PWV participants, Deborah Siegel, a “bloginar,” a five week class that will give you the tools of blogging, getting your own voice and issues out in the world. All you need is a phone and internet access to take advantage of these sessions by Deborah, To sign up for Girl w/ Keyboard: Making Waves through the Feminist Blogosphere (Strategic Blogging for Advocates, Experts, and Organizations) go to Girl with Pen (girlwithpen.blogpost.com) or email Deborah’s assistant at kristen.loveland@gmail.com. Sessions begin October 14th.

ELINOR GUGGENHEIMER: 1912-2008
This week we said farewell to a dear friend. Elly Guggenheimer was co-founder of the International Women’s Forum, The New York Women’s Agenda, The Child Care Action Committee, among so many others of our important women’s institutions. Elly was my first television partner, way back in 1971. We hosted one of the very first daily news/talk shows, Straight Talk, on WOR-TV-certainly revolutionary for the time with two women hosts. The station thought having the varying viewpoints of two women with distinct points of view-one a “Park Avenue Brahmin” the other a young “radical” black woman, would be good television. It was great fun, but Elly was always so much more radical than I-she taught me more than a few good lessons about the inequity between women and men-and our duty fix it.

As former NYC Mayor David Dinkins said at her services on Friday, “Elly was a miracle-and an institution.”

With best wishes,

Carol Jenkins
WMC President

p.s. Sign-Up For Exclusives, Daily News Brief!
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sign_up.html

Summary: In contrast to strict constructionists, who interpret the letter of the Constitution, regardless of whether 18th century applications to today’s world are valid, judicial activists attempt to understand the spirit of the Constitution in terms of our needs for its wisdom today. Issues such as reproductive rights, affirmative action, discrimination, and consumer protections did not exist nor were they even conceivable, at the time the Constitution was written. Conservatives don’t much like judicial activists, and progressives don’t much like strict constructionists. Under the heading “Strict Constructionist Philosophy” on the John McCain site, we’re told that when McCain was running for President in 1999, “he promised that, in appointing judges, he would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. . . . That is why he strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why he would seek men and women like them as his judicial appointees.” In contrast, said McCain, in an address at Wake Forest University, Barack Obama wants judges who share his values and concerns, and no one “quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it—and they see it only in each other.”

For more information on the forthcoming Unspinning the Spin: The Women’s Media Center Guide to Accurate, Bias-Free Language, click here.

Robin Morgan-whose controversial essay for the Women’s Media Center on sexism in the primary race, “Goodbye To All That #2,” was reprinted on 3,000 sites around the world-expounds here on women’s stake in the general election and the vote that will “make history.”

When Sisterhood Is Suicide and Other Late Night Thoughts
by Robin Morgan

October 1, 2008

I screwed up. I started writing this weeks ago as a Letter to Undecided Women Voters-especially those still scarred by the profound misogyny battering Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries. But headlines kept breaking and I kept adding stuff until the piece threatened to become the Black Hole that ate the Electoral College. By now, my short tolerance for willful ignorance is as spent as Wall Street while socialism-Republican-style tries to nationalize it. But it’s hard to know where to start. So many dolts and liars, so little time. So much to cover. This essay needs lists.

Since feminists are reluctant to criticize a woman (as much from a healthy fear of headlines screaming, “Catfight!” as from sisterly sanctity), I offer:

* Ten Nice Things to Say About Sarah Palin
* Ten Blunt-Crayon Hints for the Media
* Ten Reasons You CANNOT Support McCain-Palin

Finally, for those many of us still so hurt that we came this far (and this close) only to be told yet again: Sorry, you won’t make history this time-here are:

* Five Ways To Still Make History

To read Robin Morgan’s piece in it’s entirety, click here.

Summary: Undocumented worker/resident/immigrant; unauthorized immigrants (U.S. Census Bureau term). The issue here is similar to the prostitute who is vilified by name, but whose partner is not. Why aren’t companies, industries, corporations, and individuals who hire undocumented workers called illegals? Most undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. by crossing a border illegally; most enter legally—with student, tourist, or business visas—and remain after their visas expire. Pramila Jayapal, founder of Hate Free Zone, took on a TV ad—run by Washington state U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick in his, eventually, losing campaign in 2006 to unseat Senator Maria Cantwell—in which the candidate said his opponent “voted to allow social security benefits to illegals.” Her group, joined by other nonpartisan immigrant rights organizations, held a press conference to denounce the use of “illegals” as a noun and other racially charged language. McGavick responded to the protest by stating the term was a “perfectly acceptable shorthand word for people who are in our country illegally.” On the contrary, argues Jayapal, such usage by McGavick and many others objectifies and dehumanizes an entire group of people. People may commit illegal acts but “no human being is ‘illegal.’” These are people, she says, “who are the victim of an immigration system that is truly broken, that simply has not been reformed in decades to accurately reflect the need for immigrant workers that is clearly present in our country.” Such usage prevents the nation from having a real discussion about our needs.

For more information on the forthcoming Unspinning the Spin: The Women’s Media Center Guide to Accurate, Bias-Free Language, click here.