Reflections

I rang in the victory with some really great people last night. When the call came in at exactly 11:00, we were in the middle of an intense round of presidential trivia. It took about 1.2 seconds for the news to sink in. In unison we started screaming, high-fiving, crying, and embracing. We were so happy. And proud. And relieved. Admittedly we were a little slap happy and alcohol-flushed but we couldn't help but remark that we would remember the night for the rest of our lives. To be honest, I can't stop getting choked up. As I re-watch the tender moment between Michelle and the President elect, the tears slip out and down the cheeks. As I re-listen to the narrative at the end of Obama's speech, the nose starts running.

For me, the night signals a change. A change that I have been hoping for since the night I didn't sleep in 2000. A change in the way Washington approaches issues... A change in the way the American people will view sacrifice, responsibility, and democracy. Obama won, in record numbers, the votes of young voters and racial minorities. People who have often felt left out of the two-party system. It speaks volumes of what Obama signals.

Of course, I can't help but reflect on the areas we still have to "win." California values livestock more than (gay) humans. Turn out was pretty low in key states like Ohio. These things still signal that lefties have a lot of work to do. But we're ready. We're inspired. We have a leader we trust.

I can't wait to see how the next 4 years turn out!

Vote for.....

Because....

* I trust women and I want to see them healthy and happy. I believe in a woman's right to choose and that women's health should never be put in air quotes. 19 million women are uninsured in this country and women are more likely than men to go without care in order to cut costs. I favor health care that is available for all and comprehensive. Birth control and contraceptive methods should be affordable and prevalent. Obama has fought to maintain funding for the Centers of Excellence in Women's Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. He also supports legislation to encourage research that will examine gender and health disparities. The same legislation would establish community outreach programs in underserved areas to help women access health care and maintain healthy lifestyles. Obama supports the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods.

* I am middle class and fiscally responsible. Obama will not raise my taxes. I am not an oil company nor in a household making over 200K a year. I don't own a business which exports all my labor over seas. If I was, I might consider McCain. To vote against my economic interests is...in a nutshell... stupid. Inherent in the idea that I'm fiscally responsible is the notion that tax dollars should be used for the good of all. I do not subscribe to tokin'ism. So I believe the Oprah Winfreys, Bill Gates, and Horatio Algers of the world are the exception. Until it is the rule that all people (regardless of race, gender, geographic location, and luck of the birth draw) have a fair shake, I will continue to vote for people who support pooling resources for the good of the many rather than the few. This means I see it as beneficial to financially support things like universal health care and public schools. Despite being communitarian in nature, it is fiscally responsible. It saves the US money in the long run and makes us more competitive world-wide. To be fiscally responsible means to vote democratic.

* I am anti-war.

* I am pro-environment. I believe that global warming is person-made--just as solutions should be. Obama will invest money in green-collar jobs. He supports alternate energy.

* I trust Joe Biden more than I trust Sarah Palin. McCain himself said he "might have to rely on a vice president" for expertise on economic issues. Sarah Palin has none. In these economic times, we need a president with a plan and with good people surrounding him.

* I hope.

For all these reasons and many more....


And I hope you do, too.

I'm concerned....

I am a literal person. But, on occasion, I enjoy symbolism. I think symbolism can be powerful and effective. Except! Except! in images like these....The image campaign is from Declare Yourself--a voter registration group targeting young people to vote. The provocative pictures are accompanied by a headline that says "only you can silence yourself." And, I get it. In theory. I get that not voting means not having a say in the future. Except....women aren't the only ones who can silence themselves. Sexism silences women. Patriarchy silences women. Violence silences women.

The pictures mimic violence. And, perhaps worse, they normalize it. These pictures should be disturbing. And not because they makes us think of voter registration or political apathy.

Some words about the debate

I won't be watching the debate tonight. I've got a concert to attend. It is Rocktober after all...I can't be bothered with political participation. But I've had some thoughts over the past couple days regarding debates, expectations and sexism.

My sister-in-law sent me an interesting article today. The article does a few interesting things...

First, it lends credence to the idea that the Obama camp is attempting to raise expectations about Palin's debate skills. Most people who follow political rhetoric understand that if the expectations are low for a candidate, they most always meet or exceed those expectations. The better than expected performance is often misinterpreted to be a victory in the debate. The most recent example of this was George W. Bush. Because he was able to put together coherent sentences in 2000, he was seen in (some of) the post-debate spin as a winner. Not the winner but a winner. And soon, the headline was BUSH WINS DEBATE. These types of headlines suggest that Bush was somehow intellectual enough to be the leader of the free world. Obviously, the recent press about Palin suggests that she is about to crash and burn. This means any performance she has tonight is better than expected. The Obama camp is trying to manage some post-debate spin before the debate.

Second, the article continues the question of "how" Biden will debate Palin. Palin, after all, is a proud owner of a vagina. Vaginas make debates difficult. The article echos many others in tracing the difficulty back to the Bush/Ferraro debate in 1984 when Ferraro called H.W. out for being "patronizing." Of course, Ferraro dropped the line (although I don't doubt it was prepared) after Bush had offered to help her understand the difference between Iran and Lebenon. A difference she understood after 6 years in Congress.

To combat the difficulty, Biden has been practicing against Jennifer Granholm. A woman. The article says his practice is...."making it unlikely that he will fall into some of the potential pitfalls of debating against a woman." This is where I get a bit fuzzy....Does Biden normally fall into sexist, patronizing, hurtful speech? Does he have to practice against a woman in order to stay focused in the actual debate? Shouldn't it be true that Biden is as committed to a respectful, equal debate no matter the sex organs of his opponent? I'd like to think so. And I'd like Biden to come out and say so. I place much of the blame for this fuzzy analysis on the media and their pre-debate spin and (sudden) propensity to cry sexism. But I also am skepitcal of this essentialist handling of debate prep by the Obama/Biden campaign.

As a proud attendee of debate camp, I do not disparage the value of practice for debaters. I do not deny that Biden's biggest weakness during the debate will be his propensity to shout. Shouting=bad. Shouting does not seem presidential. Shouting does not sound calm and rational. And shouting can be sexist....when the words someone is shouting are sexist. But practice does not prevent falling into sexist traps. Nor does practicing against someone like Jennifer Granholm prepare Biden for debating Palin. As far as I can tell, Granholm and Palin can not be more different.

If Biden has to succumb to essentialist practicing to prevent sexist language from spewing out of his mouth, we have bigger issues than the debate....

[edit] Salon's take here

Some words about disappointment...and John Edwards

The news about Edwards breaks and you all coming looking here, huh?

The issue came up briefly yesterday (in the comments section) and I thought I'd elaborate more in a full post. I haven't been reading much of the coverage so I may overlap with other opinions but the thoughts I have in this, the immediate aftermath, are my own. I suspect they'll continue to grow as I think and read and, hopefully, participate in some discussions but for now this is what I think.

I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed because I respect Elizabeth Edwards and my heart hearts for what she must be going through and what she went through in 2006. I respect John Edwards as well. So it is hard to have to confront these stories after giving money, support and a whole lotta public props to him.

I'm disappointed because this affair suggests that Edwards is both arrogant and a bad decision maker. Arrogant because he knew what he had done, knew that stories were circulating yet still decided to run for president. What if I had gotten my wish and he was our nominee right now? What kind of mess would the party be in now? A big one. To say the least. He knew it was a risk the story would come out and he chose to ignore that risk. Or he was arrogant enough to think it wouldn't happen. He was above the rules. Above the fall from grace. He risked the party--and his wife's humiliation--to run anyway. That's arrogance. I don't think I need to elaborate on the bad decision making. Seems a bit obvious.

I'm disappointed because the affair suggests that Edwards isn't as "pro woman" as he claimed. This is the man that said he was a better advocate for woman than Hillary Clinton. Of course, his wife actually made that claim but that is a blog post in and of itself. To be frank, he isn't even "pro" his own wife. How would he look out for my interests? He couldn't sacrifice his own sexual desires and needs for the good of his vision and a country full of women who were depending on him.

However....there's always a however....I hate judging people on monogamy or other moral grounds. As I've said in reference to Bill Clinton--do I want him as my husband, father, partner, etc...NO. But can he still be a good president? Yes... and no. I know that some would say no. Some would say that the lack of control and his lack of ability to weigh consequences discounts him from a successful presidential tenure. But John Edwards, extramarital affair or not, had (what I believed to be) the best vision for our country. Obviously that vision will not be actualized. He has lost all chance of gaining a spot in this cabinet or having his own administration in the future. But is that his fault or the fault of the American people who are unable to put aside our judgments and follow a leader because he betrayed his wife? People do things we disagree with. They make mistakes. They "sin." Does that mean they are unforgivable? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that we are able to support someone politically even though we disagree with some of their personal choices. If not, where does the slippery slope end? Can we not elect someone who is a recovering alcoholic and has fallen off the wagon? Can we not elect someone who had an abortion? Don't we need more tolerance and less judgment in all areas of life? Hell, if we weren't so concerned with what goes on in people's bedrooms maybe someday we'll have a President who identifies as gay or lesbian. Imagine!

So, what I can't decide, is it fair to throw stones and forsake his ideas because he turns out to be a pompous ass with no self control?

[EDIT] Edwards' statement:
In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

[EDIT 2] Feminist's respond
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/09/john_edwards/index.html

Change *We* Can Believe In

If you are so inclined, add your name to this open letter to Barack Obama. I don't need to remind you of the FISA stuff or the crazy abortion rhetoric statements or his recent comments about energy. Well, I guess I just did. But the letter says it all....

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

If you're so inclined, you're joining good company. The least of which is mine.

A little bit of nerdiness

In case you need proof of my nerdiness.....

Drew and I decided to bet a date night on the Veepstakes race. We each came up with a top five list for McCain and Obama. 5 points if our first place is chosen, four for the second, so on and so on. Whoever has the most points gets to pick the date night. If neither of us gets any points, we don't deserve a date night. Our picks are below. I encourage you to do this with your loved ones. Nothing says family bonding like picking Vice Presidential candidates.

Kristen:
McCain-
1.Tim Pawlenty
2.Mitt Romney
3. Charlie Crist
4.Bobby Jindall
5. Sarah Palin
Obama-
1. Wesley Clark
2. Kathleen Sebelius
3. Jim Webb
4. Evan Bayh
5. Brian Schweitzer

Drew:
McCain-

1. Mitt Romney

2. Rob Portman

3. Charlie Crist

4. Tim Pawlenty

5. Sarah Palin

OBAMA-

1. Sherrod Brown

2. Brian Schweitzer

3. Evan Bayh

4. Joe Biden

5. John Edwards

Whoops

I can't stop laughing my sad, wry laugh that I reserve for true ridiculousness.

Via Feministing

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee's "Victory Chairman" and a name oft mentioned as a McCain VP, argues that:

There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.

Allow me to add some emphasis. WOMEN WOULD LIKE A CHOICE.

CHOICE!
CHOICE!

Fiorina is right. Women would like a choice. Too bad McCain has opposed funding for family planning programs and voted against requiring insurance coverage of birth control. This has earned him a zero rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lowest rating possible in the U.S. Senate.

A zero rating. Seems to me McCain is definitively anti-choice.

The Election continued...

I remain undecided between Clinton and Obama. My horse was Edwards. Still is. I don't feel particularly inspired by either Clinton or Obama. It goes without saying that I feel either are better than McCain. McCain is scary. He's out of touch. I'll be disappointed in anyone who votes for him just like I think those who voted for Bush (especially in 04 when they knew what they were getting) owe the American people an apology for what he's done to our international reputation, our economy and our morale. But I digress....

I feel that my lack of strong support for either candidate gives me a unique perspective into the election. My only agenda is to see a Democrat take office in 08. So some thoughts...

1. If people truly want change. Truly? They would take a stand and not vote for either of the two major parties. I still don't understand why Obama and Clinton are out "changing" one another. I really don't understand how Obama gets to claim this narrative of change. As illustrated by the negative tone of the campaigns, the amount of money needed to participate and the airwaves being dominated by the pundits rather than the "common" people, politics is politics. Obama is not an outsider. Clinton isn't either. Both are entrenched in party politics. Both want to win. I think it is naive to assume that the only way to inspire is to claim outsider status. I am inspired by a politician (with experience) looking out for the middle class. I'm inspired by someone who has an understanding of the game of politics while playing it fairly. I'm inspired by someone who maintains a position of privilege maintaining a stance that shows they also stand on margins to fight for fairness and rights for those who often are overlooked.

2. I still have a hard time distinguishing between politics and sexism. I do think that Obama gets a free pass on many issues. He's treated better by the media. He's romanticized. Is that because Clinton's policies stink or is it because we have a deep seated distrust of women? I can't distinguish. I do know that more often than not Hillary is accused of being manipulative. She is accused of being calculated. We all know that there is nothing in any campaign that isn't calculated. I think it is more acceptable to accuse a women of playing games than it is a person of color. Don't get me wrong, racism is alive and well. When people go into that voting booth alone with their biases, I think racism could rear its ugly head. Sexism just gets to be alive and well in the open public sphere. I know a lot of smart and progressive people who pull for Obama who reek of sexism. I'm talking about the comparison of Hillary to Tracy Flick (in Election fame). I'm talking about the people who criticize her use of emotion (of course they never accuse Obama of "manipulating" the African American speaking style of past heroes). People who critique her role as mother (she isn't a "good" mother, she uses Chelsea) as if it matters to her potential job as President.

3. The newest thing to really piss me off? The claim that Clinton really has no "foreign" policy experience. It isn't that she has no foreign policy experience. It is that her foreign policy experience mostly deals with women's rights abroad. Not surprisingly, these efforts go unnoticed and are cast aside as not important and not "real." It goes without saying that it is a mistake for Obama to get into a "credentials" battle. I'm not sure why he is going there. However, even if it wasn't, the media would do it for him. Sexism.

4. The "war" issue. To be sure, neither democratic candidate is anti-war. Neither espouse a pacifist paradigm. Neither were actively trying to change American foreign policy until the 08 election approached. Neither would be afraid to use force. If someone is truly anti-war, they probably feel by the false choice of either Clinton or Obama. This is an issue I'm really struggling with in 08. I don't feel at home with either democratic candidate. Will I support the nominee? Yes. But it isn't exactly because they are "anti-war." They are other things. They uphold other policies that I hold dear. But they don't represent an anti-war alternative. Clinton, who I know to be intelligent, was "duped" by the Bush Administration. Obama, who is anti this war has threatened a Pakistan invasion and, by most accounts, over-sold his plan for Iraq troop withdrawal.

I want the primary to end soon. I'm getting annoyed at both candidates, the media, and the dogmatic fans of both candidates. In true hyper-competitive political fashion, we're splintering the party. We talk about the differences between Obama and Clinton (which are slight) instead of priming the American public for the larger issues of differences we'll see in the general election.

The one in which I write about the big day

Happy Super Tuesday everyone! Gah. I love voting day. Normally it gets me energized and pumped for change. I'm nestled into my regular coffee shop/bar for my Tuesday morning routine. I am constantly refreshing Daily Kos and I'm eavesdropping on multiple conversations. This place is normally pretty divided between those who do tequila shots in the morning and head to their blue collar job and those who drink tea and don't ever go to a "job." The tequila folks stick to the tequila and the tea people stick to their respective corners. Except today. Today there is mingling. Today conversations are started over the peach "I Voted" stickers. There is division among the group. But that division isn't as simple as tea and tequila. Tea and tequila are mixing. They are in Obama, Clinton and Paul corners. As for me? I'm on the outskirts drinking my tea and listening in. I'm in the undecided corner. A surprising place to be. To be sure, I'm not here for lack of information. I'm not here for lack of concern, interest or opinion. I'm here because, well, I just can't decide. The way I see it, I have three options....

1. Vote for Obama. Vote for change and experience. Vote for someone who is promising to move the party in a new direction. I'll make history because I'll endorse a new face of the democratic party. I'll reward someone for fancy speeches and sound rhetoric. I'll vote for someone I like (and, dare I say, want to have a beer with) and smile knowing that I have spent the last 7 year blasting voters from 2000 and 2004 who argued they liked Bush better.

2. Vote for Clinton. Vote for change and experience. Vote for someone who is firmly rooted in the mistakes and progress of the Democratic party of old. I'll make history because I'll vote for a female president. I'll reward someone for 30+ years of service and hardwork. I'll vote for someone I like (and, dare I say, want to see succeed because of the sexism running wild in our system) and smile knowing that I have spent the better part of a this year blasting some media sources who would claim I would do something similar.

3. Vote for Edwards. Vote for the platform that I hold dear. Vote for someone who has consistently fought for the issues I hold dear. I won't make history, instead I'll be cast aside as a "wasted vote." People will talk about my percentage of the vote and laugh about how we must not have known Edwards dropped out. But I'll smile knowing that my message, although subtle, was a political one. I'll reward someone for setting the progressive, populist agenda in this race. I'll reward someone for talking about health care, poverty, and the fledgling economy from the start.

The option I'm leaning toward is 3. There is the cynical argument to be made that it won't matter. The polls pretty clearly show GA going for Obama. But I hate that "my vote won't matter" argument with a passion. There is the optimist argument to be made that I like both Clinton and Obama. I think they're both experienced and fighting for change. I think the differences between them are so minimal that if I hear one more argument about "mandates" I'm going to scream. If one's vote comes down to health care mandates, I'm concerned. If one becomes a political dogmatist over mandates, I'm incensed. Your vote should come down to who inspires you. Edwards inspired me which is why I'm so drawn to voting for him. I'm persuaded by both the benefit of a new direction for politics and a regression back to Clinton politics. In short, I'm persuaded. I'm also excited and hopeful. No matter which option I choose, I'll be glued to the television and political blogs tonight. This is an exciting day.

A blogger send off

I'm sure you've all heard that Edwards is dropping out. I appreciate the supportive e-mails and facebook messages I've gotten from friends lending me their shoulder to cry on. And I will cry. At least for a short time. On the whole, I'm still feeling wildly optimistic about 08. I've said all along I'll get behind whoever the nominee is because I feel confident that they will take this country in a positive direction. I feel that all the democratic candidates provide people a "they are a whole lot better than the alternative" vote and authentic hope for change. I will not be voting for the democratic nominee because I can't stand the republicans (although I can't), I'll be voting Democratic in 08 because I think they're the most in line with the constitution, values and needs of and for this country.

I've been conflicted throughout this race. Is my best choice in 08 really the archetype white male? Maybe I've not really as progressive as I think...why am I not finding my political support resting with the candidate that has breasts or darker skin. Why am I picking the good looking, white, neatly coiffed white man? Am I really more moderate than I think of myself? Do I have one foot dipped in the good ole boys network? No. I support Edwards because (despite his feelings toward the death penalty) he was the first mainstream candidate to articulate an agenda that resembles my hopes for the United States.

I always encourage my Women's Studies students to "write an imaginary thank you note" to the author we covered in class on any given day. I'll say "if you had to write Betty Friedan a thank you note, what would you say?" Inevitably, they list off the ideas in one's work that resonated most with them.

So, here, is my thank you note to John Edwards....

Thank you for:

* Proposing an economic stimulus plan (that included unemployed workers) long before there was a consensus on just how bad the economy is.
* Calling for a public investment in alternative energy and promoting a cap and trade system.
* Joining people on the margins to fight against poverty. This means you took seriously the need for a higher minimum wage, to reform the lending system and pursue economic justice. You were the only candidate to consistently talk about poverty and government's responsibility in eliminating it.
* Being honest about how these difficult changes were going to happen. You admitted that someone had to pay for them. You showed knowledge and hope--a powerful combination.
* Scaring the business lobby throughout the race.
* Asking Americans to sacrifice for something other than the war on terror. We can't just make sacrifices for "war," instead (you reminded us) we need to sacrifice to get our emissions under control and our poverty rates in check.
* Being the first to advocate a bold universal health plan. You set the tone and the agenda in the race regarding health care.
* Remembering that college should be affordable and making a commitment to education at all levels.
* Talking about women.
* Marrying Elizabeth Edwards and bringing her into the national discussion.
* Being honest about where you stand on gay marriage. Even though I don't agree, I found it promising that you were willing to continue thinking about the issue. That you were willing to admit that you "didn't know." I don't see that as a flip flop, I see that as a thinker who is willing to keep progressing.

I don't agree with every position Edwards' has ever taken. But I agree with much of what he stands for today. I think he ran a great campaign and I'm sad to see him leave the race. He talked about important issues on the campaign trail and in the debates.

So where do I go from here? The big question is what happens to the Edwards' supporters. I'm not sure. I don't know who I'll support in Georgia's primary next week. If Edwards' name is still on the ballot, I'll vote for him. There is a lot going on between the Obama and Clinton camps that I don't like. I've been disappointed by the negativity and the games. I'm disappointed when Obama doesn't take questions from the audience during his stops and I'm disappointed when Clinton makes all her answers into negative attacks. I'm disappointed when Obama mis- characterizes attacks on his voting record as personal attacks and I'm disappointed when Clinton spends all her time touting her past and not looking ahead to the future. I'm disappointed by the lack of attention to poverty. I'm disappointed in the disputes over mindless issues. I'm disappointed in Bill. And I'm disappointed in the Obama supporters who play cut throat politics at the expense of the party. But I hope that it will turn around. I believe that both Clinton and Obama value the party more than their ego. They value the voter more than the Washington insiders. They just need to prove it. I'll be waiting to see who gets there first. Who evolves? Who will be the person that remembers what and who needs fighting for.

Election 08

For the most part, I am pumped about this primary season. I am loving the activity, the speeches, the frequency of debates and primaries. But, as always, there are a few things I'm not so keen on.

Last night, MSNBC's coverage of the "gender war" was nauseating. Throw stuff at my television nauseating. Let me break this down--(a) it doesn't matter if Hillary's tears were calculated any more than it matters if Edwards' "son of a mill worker" is calculated. The press does not spend half as much time worrying about what the male candidates calculate and don't calculate. But throw a little emotion and some ovaries into the race and all holy hell breaks loose. It reeks of sexism and it certainly showcases the oppression that Clinton still faces. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She doesn't show enough emotion or she shows too much emotion. Feminists like to call that a double bind. If a person has NO OPTION, they are oppressed. (b) Hillary won a lot of female votes. YES. She also won more registered democrats than Obama and Edwards. But the press doesn't talk about that. Instead, they debate the merits of her tears among female voters. Did her burst of emotion attract some female voters? Sure! Did it attract male voters? Probably! Did her burst of emotion turn off male and female voters? Probably! When the pundits turn all female voters into a monolith, they do them a disservice. Women are no more likely to be fooled by "calculated" campaign techniques than men. Are some women more likely to vote for Clinton because she is a woman? It seems that many over 65 are. But there is no proof that any other female demographic is. It is possible that the people who voted for her like her politics. Or maybe even like her! In fact, it appears that highly educated women are ambivalent about Clinton's sex. One thing is possible--[women?] voters look at how Clinton is being treated (i.e. a man coming to her speech with an "iron my shirt" sign) and are pissed off. When people are pissed off, they vote. Further, why aren't we hearing about the "men showing up for Obama?" Why don't we have a racial breakdown of voters? (It could be, I suppose, that there are no people of color in NH. But I suspect it is deeper than that.) Sexism clothed in political clothing. We need to stop treating female candidates and female voters as novelties. Is Clinton's campaign a huge step for females? Yes. But more importantly it may be a huge step forward for the country. Just as Obama's is. Just as Romney's is.

If Georgia had a primary, I would be voting for Edwards. I'm not a Clinton supporter. Despite having the same sex organs, I don't have the same politics. However, I do have a brain and a conscious...and they are telling the media to shut the hell up. I'm assuming that most of us can recognize that talking about Clinton's clothing, hairstyle, beauty is out of line. Most of us can probably see the amount of times the media uses her first name while using a more official title for the male candidates and shake our head. I'm just hoping that more of us realize other more covert instances of sexism.

On a lighter note...do you think that I only love the idea of caucusing because I don't have to do it? A teeny part of me wished I lived in Iowa so I could go to a town hall meeting and stand in Edwards' corner.

For more Clinton analysis see....
Kos (particularly interesting as Kos is no Clinton lover) and Steinem

You Tube + Politics

To say that I was skeptical of tonight's debate format would be an understatement. My concerns were twofold. On one hand I was anxious that the debate would be an excuse for indignant, arrogant, and inarticulate citizens to get involved in the political world simply because they could rather than because they should (elitism much?). On the other, I wasn't convinced the debate would be all that different. Sure, the questions were coming from YouTube but the debate was still being run by the mainstream media. CNN was picking the questions they would air. They were doing the follow up questions. The candidates were still running for office. The American people were still only half listening. I believe in the power of the internet. I believe it is starting to change politics. I believe YouTube is starting to change politics. But I more believe it is changing accountability. Changing the theatre of campaigning. I don't necessarily believe it is changing the process of politics. Not yet anyway. It contributes to the overall change we are seeing (raising more money, newer demographics paying attention and maybe voting) but YouTube has not revolutionized the process. It is still controlled by special interest. It is still a game. It is still played only by certain people.

But to say that I enjoyed tonight's debate would be an understatement. I. LOVED. IT. Sure, there were a few uncomfortable questions by people who made me shake my head. Anderson Cooper had some rough moments. But overall, I did see a difference in this debate. First, more domestic questions. THANK GOD. I think at this point we get the candidates' Iraq position. We get they want more diplomacy and less war. We get they think we are the embarrassment in the international community. WE GET IT. What we don't get a lot of is a conversation about education. We don't get conversations middle America. And we don't get clash. Tonight was a start on all of those things. I enjoy the united we stand front. But I also like to see Edwards and Clinton battle out the specifics of their ideas. [SIDENOTE] How great was Clinton's correct assertion that it is a good day when politicians are addressing women's issues?! Right on. I don't agree with how everyone is addressing them but at least they know they're there.

A few specific thoughts:

Who did the best? Clinton. For sure. She was smart, articulate, gracious and even a little likable. I think she has shown a large improvement. I guess it is easy to win, however, when you are already winning. I am not a Clinton supporter. I walked away liking her a little bit more tonight.

Worst? Goes without saying--Gravel. GET HIM OFF THE STAGE. The only thing he does is make the other candidates look less crazy to Republican voters. He is not a democrat (take your flat tax and shove it...). He is polarizing. He is embarrassing. He does not want a Democratic victory in 08. I was angry tonight. If he wants to start a conversation, he should start a blog. Maybe he would get more questions if he stopped shouting his answers. He looked like a madman.

Most Improved? Richardson. He started to trail off at the end and gets a little long-winded but I loved his answer on gay marriage. Great talking points in that answer..."I'll go after what we can get..." His strength lies in selling the optimism and pragmatism of policies. But he has a long, long way to go.

Best video? Edwards. Loved it. It was playful yet poignant. WHAT. THE. HELL. WERE DODD'S PEOPLE THINKING?!

What I wish they would keep up even when the format goes back to the old way? The humor. Sure, at times it was forced. But by far, this was the most enjoyable debate for viewers. The candidates all seemed confident and proud. Confident and proud.

My unsolicited advice? If I see another "show of hands" question in another debate, I will kick the television. STOP IT. We are not engaged in some elementary school election. Not only that but Kucinich looked especially ridiculous and it just isn't fair to him.

Obama needs to get rid of the word "look" from his debate vocabulary. We don't need a lecture, Obama. We need a concise message.

Never. Ever. Pull out a cell phone during a debate. NEVER.

The whole 'I'm poorer than you' bit? Offensive.

ANYWAY...
If you'd like some really interesting and complete commentary on the YouTube debates and public dialogue, head over to http://www.debatescoop.org/.