Don't I Know It

Clinton-Obama Quandary for Many Black Women

NYTimes Confesses Its Sins

Turns out that the NY Times does have a conscience--or at least it turns out to have one under mounting scrutiny of its potential wrongdoing. The paper of record has now admitted that the discount it gave MoveOn.org to run the infamous General Betray Us ad was "a mistake"; apparently someone inside decided it was time to come clean about the fact that journalists just like liberals better.

Republicans Care About Health Care, Too?

Well, it seems like at least one does--for the moment. Today, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is set to outline his plan for a system of health care reform that would enable states to extend coverage to some of the millions of currently uninsured Americans. It's a model he put in place while he was governor of Massachusetts--and it's nice to see that he hasn't returned to the dark side on this, too, given his recent reformation on most social issues.

Romney's plan sticks to private coverage--no "European-like," universal, one-party insurer here. Still, it's nice to see someone on the GOP side at least gesturing towards the notion that even the (relatively) poor deserve the right to live dignified lives.

Juan Cole Goes Heroic on Rove

Listen: I've read a lot of articles about Karl Rove and his tactics, and if any one gets it right it's this one by Juan Cole. It's not just that Cole is able to make an interesting historical connection between Rove's way of being and that of the infamous Joseph Goebbels (while also being quick to say, "Rove is no Nazi."). It's that, better than anything I've read in a while, this article gives a palpable sense of both the cruelty and deception that have become the hallmark of Rove's tenure. When even the folks at Fox News are asking you, a Republican leader, to revisit your sentiments, and the veracity of your statements, you know you've got some deep s**t going on.

Also, I just love the combination of the words "poisonous," "rhetorical" and "legacy" with Rove's name. Brings a shiver of gladness to my spine. Thus, for today, Juan Cole is my hero. Keep it coming, brother.

Judging the Debate on Its Merits

Interesting and evocative post on HuffPo today, written by a champion debate coach, on who really won last night's election. Looking at the technical aspects of the thing, the author finds that Richardson was the winner overall, and if I had been paying any attention to what he was saying, rather than gabbing to Jess about one or the other of Hillary, Barack, or John Edwards' preceding statements, I might actually agree. Shoot--that really wasn't fair of me, was it? Does it make it any better that I spent a lot of time talking about how damn cute Dennis Kucinich is, too?

Why I Won't Vote for John Edwards

Tonight's You Tube/CNN debate, which wrapped up just moments ago, crystallized one thing for me once and for all: John Edwards won't be getting my vote. Why? Because despite the fact that I think his wife is dope:

1. I don't have any interest in hearing again about how "difficult" the gay thing is for you personally. Struggle with it all you want; let your little Southern baptist heart twist and bleed over who Jesus really meant when he preached for the care and inclusion of the least among us--I just don't want to hear it. And anyone who can't come to a place of equality for all, especially in the secret recesses of his heart, would never get my vote anyway.

2. Picking on Hillary Clinton's wardrobe is a petty, stupid thing to do. Does it matter that she's the only woman on that stage? Yes, it does. And to go after a woman like that, even in a joking manner, makes you, John, look small and mean. Not to mention that smirk. That you don't like her is made clear enough in other ways; spare yourself the embarrassment of looking like--and acting like--a chauvinist by dismissing her choice of outfit. A moronic move, any way you cut it.

I'll say it one more time: I sure wish it was Elizabeth Edwards, not John, who was up there running for office. Now, that would be an interesting race.

How Far Up George Bush's Butt IS Bill Kristol??

It's a legitimate question. And from the tone of this piece of crap published a week ago in the WaPo, I'd say, pretty darn far: Why Bush Will Be A Winner

For a great counter, read Eric Alterman's piece on the HuffPo.

Time for Another Debate? You betcha.

I bet it feels to you like it was just last night you were watching a debate between the candidates for the presidency of the United States. It certainly feels that way to me. But lo and behold, it is now time for those motley crews to gather together again and try not to offend each other too much while tearing apart the policies of their colleagues on the other side of the ideological divide. And this time, they've gone all techie on us: tonight at 7pm ET tune your channel to CNN and check out the first debate hosted by our friends at YouTube, which will take place in good old Charleston, SC.

And because YouTube is the bigwig behind this particular debate, you, netizen, have your very own shot at having your searingly sharp question be deflected by one of the major candidates: just visit YouTube to submit a question (note: you've gotta have a video or web camera to do this) and from there a crack team of CNN producers will whittle the pool down to the 75-100 questions they imagine Anderson Cooper will feel most comfortable sharing with the candidates (so nothing too too gay, please).

Since it's the closest most of us will ever get to being in the ring with the big boys, I highly advocate giving it a shot. (Though interestingly enough, I actually got somewhat of an invite to travel to Charleston to blog the event... and sadly enough, the fact that I have a j-o-b kept me from being able to go. Which brings me back to my earlier point: the YouTube debate is a godsend for most of us.)

Democracy (sorta) opened up to the demos? Pretty rad.

We've Got Him Just Where We Want Him

Need I say more?

To buy this and other yummy Barack paraphernalia, visit: www.barackobama.com

The Myth of the Conservative Majority

Late last week I got an email from Media Matters informing me that (no surprise here) I've been in the right all along: extensive polling and research has now found that the majority of Americans are, like me, PROGRESSIVE.

Never mind what the conservative thought leaders and media-makers tell you--the majority of us in this country believe in Government taking responsibility for its citizenry--even if it means more spending. The majority of us want a higher minimum wage; are for conservation; want to protect a woman's right to choose; want health care coverage for all; and see that it's long since been time to get the hell out of Iraq.

I like being right, so this is very good news, indeed. For more details, see Eric Lotke's article on AlterNet this morning (via TomPaine.com).

Altercation: This Time It's For Real

Or, sort of for real: Eric Alterman, columnist for The Nation and sometime HuffPo blogger, explains the how and why behind his arrest last night at the Democratic debate hosted by CNN. The story that was originally reported by CNN spins a much feistier tale of Alterman's arrest; Alterman's own clarification on the HuffPo paints a picture of a rather milder sort of "misunderstanding." Best part of the whole thing? When Congressman Ed Markey sees Alterman being handcuffed and essentially does nothing to help him. You can't make this stuff up!

Barack Beats the Health Care Drum

At last! A plan from our buddy Barack. As part of a campaign stop at the University of Iowa, Obama finally unveiled his plan to fix our doddering health care system--you know, the one that leaves nearly 47 million Americans without an ounce of coverage.

His goal is to provide universal coverage, and yes, it's going to cost something: probably something int he neighborhood of $50 to $65 billion. And yes, the Federal government will be responsible for picking up that check. How does Obama propose to make up the difference? By repealing those tax breaks President Bush put in place for the privileged few: those who make over $200,000 a year.

Sounds like a plan to me...

Pro Condies On the March

Today's cover story over at Salon is, unsurprisingly, about the 2008 election. The Republican slate of candidates, to be more precise. The shocker? The candidate they're focusing on is actually not a candidate at all--or at least not at the moment. But if the people at ThinkCondi.net have their way, that won't be the case for long.

That's right: there's now a movement to draft Condoleezza Rice to run for President in the same way that Eisenhower was drafted so many years yore (did you even know that happened?). No matter that the Condster has made it pretty clear she ain't running; these folks have fired up a bus and plan to drag her kicking and screaming into the race.

Would that be a good thing? A bad one? I don't know. As an African-American woman I'll tell you that I'd love to love Condi--but my fear of all things Satanic keeps me from making the leap. That said, I do think it would be fabu to have her in the race, not least of all because perhaps it would deflate some of the "can a woman lead effectively" talk that you get when you have only one female candidate in the ring.

So upon reflection, yes, Condi fans, keep up the hard work. [ A quick note to the ThinkCondi team: you're going nowhere without some dope campaign buttons. Take a cue from your allies and print you some up, right quick.]

Michelle Obama in the Spotlight

From today's New York Times, a profile and video offering on the wife of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. As much as I like Obama, I must say I like Michelle even more, and sometimes have that same feeling when watching her stump for her husband that I did watching Kerry Kennedy Cuomo stump for hers--i.e., that SHE ought to have been the one running, rather than playing the role of back-up singer (though In the Cuomo/ Kennedy Cuomo case the imbalance was much greater, for sure).

In any case, I'm hoping that Michelle will continue to get ample face-time as this race continues. My only gripe: can we stop talking already about how she's "meaner" and "tougher" than he is? There are more options for black women, certainly, than being either the coddling mammy or the stone cold butch... How about we let Michelle be the three-dimensional person she is? A radical notion, I'm aware, but one with striving for.

Apologies Galore (and The Round-up)

To all those who are regular readers of this blog and therefore noticed that though I usually post every single workday, last week I posted only twice, I offer my profoundest apologies... This back thing really knocked me for a loop. Had to have x-rays last Thursday to rule out any herniated discs and the like (which were indeed ruled out) and then got put on a bit of bed rest and Flexeril--which, you will know if you've ever been on it, makes you more than a little groggy. I like to say that Thursday night was spent more or less in a drug induced coma, but by Friday, I'd figured out how to time my doses so that I could actually get some work done--albeit from my couch--during the day.

Today I'm finally back somewhat on track, and though my back is still aching and I'm kicked back in my chair like some17th century Pasha, its possible to get a few more things accomplished... like blogging. So here I am, again, and for the duration, I hope.

In any case, my job is not to natter on about ME, but to direct you to the news that's fit to kick around. So, to that end...

Bill Officially Stumping for Hill: Any time I get a message in my inbox from Bill Clinton that says, "Watch This" I promise you one thing: I'm opening it (since you never know what he could have in mind). Though not as titillating as some of the best outtakes from his years in office, this video of him stumping for Hillary really is effective--though whether that's because I learned things about Hillary I never knew before, or because I just got sucked in by that amazing Bill Clinton charm, I cannot say. Regardless, worth a watch.

J.K. Rowling to the Rescue: Seems that the Harry Potter author cum billionairess has offered to add a few pennies to the fund being amassed as a reward for the return of Madeleine McCann--the 4 year old who was left alone by her parents while they went out to dinner and then disappeared. Sources are calling Rowling's pledge "staggering"--so if you didn't think returning an abducted child to her parents was a valuable act in and of itself, now you have further inducement to be a decent human being.

Lefties Battle over Georgia Rule: I'm going to stay mostly out of this one since both are parties known to me, but just for your knowledge, there's an interesting debate going on between Jennifer Pozner, Don Hazen, and the readers of both their sites over a posting last week on Alternet about the film "Georgia Rule." Take it all in and judge for yourself.

Katie Couric: This Time, Gender Means Everything

Over at CBS.com, viewers are making their voices heard over their displeasure at Katie Couric's interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards on this past Sunday's 60 Minutes. I missed the first airing of the show, so to get myself up to speed I took the time to watch it on the site itself. Granted, I went into my viewing experience knowing, thanks to my Daily News Feed from MediaBistro, that people were already ripping Couric to shreds over her callousness, and so, given that I can be somewhat contrarian, may have been predisposed to rebuttal. But if you've read this blog for any period of time, you know that I'm not exactly what you call a huge fan of Couric's show. So all in, I figured, I was walking into it pretty balanced--if I had come away feeling she was terrible to the poor people I would have been no more surprised than if I took out my earphones and thought, "What a fantastic interview."

In the actual event, neither of those things were what first came to mind upon shutting down my video window. What came to mind instead was how clear it is that so many of these complaints have everything to do with Katie Couric being a woman--offering but one more irritating example of the lingering gender imbalance that colors our entire world. It's not that I believe that viewers don't have the right to complain about the media--indeed, I wish that happened more. But too much about both the tone and the terms of these particular complaints--which refer to her as "arrogant", "cocky" and "insensitive" to name a few--rings too close to an adage that was repeated to me just the other night by one of the pioneers of the feminist movement: "In order to be considered ruthless a man has to rape and pillage an entire country. All a woman has to do is say no."

Watch the interview for yourself and then let's get real, people, and start acknowledging the truth: Katie Couric did not ask a single, solitary question that any other respectable journalist, male or female, wouldn't also have asked. The questions were utterly predictable: tell us about your cancer, tell us about your kids, tell us about what you told your kids. And then the various versions of "How do you explain why you're staying in the race?" What else should she have--could she have--asked??

John and Elizabeth Edwards are not Joe and Milly Beecroft from Podunk, Michigan, hauled out as sympathetic, unwitting victims to give CBS's rating a boost. Edwards is running, for the second time, to be President of the United States. He has a campaign team that numbers in the hundreds, by my guess, and communications consultants up the wazoo. There is simply no way he and Elizabeth walked into that interview unprepared to face the "hard" questions, and if by some freak chance they did, then it's time for them to invest in better staff. You do the interview, if you are the Edwardses, precisely to answer questions like these, and to give the American people a chance to hear your rationale for staying in the game. Because the questions Couric asked are exactly the same questions we are all asking each other; better to control the flow of information by offering definitive answers than by allowing ordinary people to speculate and, given our too-often twisted media culture, pundits to wag their tongues in the wrong direction.

So why the sustained hew and cry over Couric's line of questioning? Well, without being too simplistic about it, it clearly has lots (too much) to do with both who Katie is (a woman) and what we expect from her because of that. Spend some time reading the rather mean spirited comments on the CBS site (there are currently 94 pages of posts--if you scroll to the bottom of this page, you'll see where the comments begin), and you begin to wonder if people were expecting Katie to wrap Elizabeth and John up in a blanket and rock them (and us) to sleep rather than conduct an interview. Because that's what women are "supposed" to do, you see: take care, coddle, patronize. Watching Couric ask for real answers to important questions about Edwards' candidacy seems to feel to too many people like having their own mother slap them on the hand; somehow, these viewers appear to be taking it as a personal affront that Couric had the chutzpah to actually do her job and demand answers to the questions we don't have the guts, or access, to ask the Edwardses ourselves.

But isn't that what the media are there for, after all? To ask the questions the average viewer would not dare? (Once upon a time, I hear, that was actually the case.) Is it that we've lost our sense overall of what "journalism" actually means, or is it simply that we're still (still!) unable to evaluate a woman's work on its merits alone? Because really: if Dan Rather had asked the same questions, would we even be having this debate?

It's time for the viewing public to realize that women journalists, just like their male counterparts, have every right to ask tough questions of the folks looking to serve in highest office--in fact, it is their responsibility to do so. All these complaints about how much Katie did or didn't smile, why she didn't bring her own personal experiences into the discussion (one poster calls her a "hypocrite" because she worked when her own husband was dying), and on and on, only make it more depressingly evident that women remain "women" first, and that, no matter how much folks talk about a post-feminist age, gendered expectations continue to put real limits on the ways that we are all allowed to behave, and, in this case, the questions we are permitted to ask. In a way I've never quite experienced before, I truly feel for Katie Couric today--probably more than anything because it reminds me of the proscriptions that exist for all of us women, whether we choose to pay attention to them or not. I hope she--and CBS--will remain brave enough to keep weathering these storms. All of our futures depend on it.

To Do: Spend $1,000 to Breathe Same Air as Barack & Michelle

I won't be shelling out the cash for this particular fundraiser (not because I don't support Barack, but because I am trying to support myself), but if there are any of you out there who are interested in seeing the junior Senator from Illinois and his wife up close, here's your chance. Next Friday, March 9th from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Barack and Michelle will attend one of their first major fundraising events here in New York, at the Grand Hyatt. If you're interested in learning how to get tickets (minimum donation: $1,000 per person), shoot me an email and I'll let you know more.

And for those who can't swing the price of that ticket, there'll be another event for the Obamas later that evening, where you can catch your glimpse for a more reasonable $100 a head. God bless those community organizing roots!

Health Care for All? Most American Say Yes

Over at the NYT, Robin Toner and Janet Elder are reporting that a new poll shows a majority of Americans support guaranteed health care for all citizens--even if it means increasing taxes today and killing all future tax cuts. 47 million Americans--that's a full 15% of the population--currently have no form of health insurance, and it seems that most of us understand that that's just unacceptable. In fact, in terms of domestic issues, health care issues out rank immigration, tax cuts and "values" on voters lists of concerns with regard to the upcoming election.

So does this give Hillary, with her strong health care background, any kind of edge? That bit is less clear, not least of all because though the poll demonstrates widespread support of coverage for all, Americans remain pretty divided about what that coverage should look like--i.e., whether it should be government sponsored (as the Clinton plan suggested) or managed by private entity. It's that old, Democrat/Republican split again, but still good to see that the issue is at the top of lots of minds, whether those minds run Red or Blue.

For Your Calendar--GOP Debate at Reagan Library

I'm sure the first question is: why should we care? Well here's the hook: the event is being sponsored by MSNBC and Politico.com (which you should be reading if you aren't already) and will allow for viewers watching from the Politico website to submit their questions to the candidates in real-time, via email. It'll take place May 3rd, and represents the first time the Reagan Library will be used for a debate. This is your chance to ask the slippery little dudes the hard questions... or at least its our best shot at flooding the question pool with hostile inquiries about war, health care and the economy. Be there!

Ready to get Romney-fied?

Until today, the total body of my knowledge about Mitt Romney was made up of these 2 facts: 1) He is the former (one-term) governor of the state of Massachusetts, and 2) He is a Mormon. Now, thanks to the LA Times, I know one other thing: he's running to become the 44th president of the United States of America.

Ok, that's not quite all: Romney, like a certain African-American Democratic candidate we know, has already figured out that he's duty-bound to talk about how Washington can't be changed by "insiders", if his campaign is going to have any chance at viability. This may be true, but for some reason I have the feeling that Republicans --with all their staid, stay-the-course logic--will be less likely than the free-wheeling Dems to accept the argument that experience doesn't matter...making Romney's path to the nomination that much more difficult.

And then there's this: is America ready for a Mormon president? Should I be scared by the fact that one longstanding belief of the Mormon church is/was that Blacks were "cursed" and children of the devil" and could, therefore, not hold positions of priesthood in the LDS church? I know from reading "Under the Banner of Heaven ", Jon Krakauer's compelling portrait of extreme Mormonism, that BYU recently elected its first black Saint to the presidency of the student body--but I can't say that quite quells my worries.

What's clear is that this race--a black man, a white woman, and a Mormon, so far-- will be a great referendum on just how tolerant the United States has really become. Whoever is left standing at the end of this one will certainly offer an important lesson on our progress as a nation--or lack thereof.