Nobel Laureates Choose Obama

I'm so glad I checked out Daily Kos today and saw this open letter from 61 Nobel Laureates endorsing Barack Obama for president.

This year's presidential election is among the most significant in our nation's history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world's leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

And yes, I too am fascinated at how I've been able to come full circle during this election season... From outspoken anti-Obamite to full-fledged supporter of his campaign. It's truly amazing what hatred for the GOP can inspire.

Super-Atheist Sam Harris Attacks Palin

Stumbling upon Sam Harris' extraordinary op-ed on Sarah Plain ("When Atheists Attack") in the current edition of Newsweek has revived my resolve to finish reading his Letter to a Christian Nation (which I started last year but shelved indefinitely for lack of time during student-hood).

In his absolutely scathing critique of her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the "second most important job in the world," Harris comes down hard on Palin's fundamentalist Christian ideology and highlights the ramifications her beliefs may have on American policy. Although I strongly recommend you read the entire article for yourself, here are some prime excerpts:

"I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House."

"Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves."

"Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?"

This one includes yet another reference to that point I've been harping on and on about (hypocritical treatment of Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin):

"It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community."

And of course, my personal favorite:

"What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical
decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

Wiping off the Lip-sctick

Tell 'em, NOW!

Dear Kelly,

"Sarah Palin represents a new feminism. . ."
conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, quoted in the Los Angeles Times

It has been a long time since we've heard the word "feminist" spoken in public so many times a day. Like me, I'm sure you find it a bit ironic.

According to The Washington Post, Republicans think "Palin's burst onto the national scene could be a chance to redefine the nature of feminism in politics," and prominent media suggest her as "a feminist dream" or even the new "face of feminism."

That's where we come in. NOW is working hard to make sure that, despite some media pundits' apparent confusion, every woman in the country understands what is really at stake on November 4. For us, the spotlight on feminism in the 2008 elections should be about real change -- change that will help secure and advance true equality for women -- not just lip service or lipstick. We're putting all possible resources into educating voters and turning out the feminist vote on Election Day.

With less than forty days left before Nov. 4, time is short. Voter registration in most states will close in just a few days. And we need your help to mobilize and get the word out. Our activists are going the extra mile, but our resources are stretched thin as we work against the clock.

I won't go through the laundry list, but you know that from equal pay to abortion and birth control, we have a lot to lose in November. We need you to help us alter the course this country has been on for the past eight years as we work for the change WOMEN need on election day and beyond.

NOW will be working hard to get out the vote and highlight critical women's issues, including dangerous state ballot measures. And the NOW Political Action Committee has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket, as well as solid women's rights candidates in critical congressional races across the country.

Please consider what you can do to help in our final push. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kim A. Gandy
NOW President

Two Problems with this Statement

"But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. [Trig] is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers." -NYTimes

The first: Raise your hand if you think calling Governor Palin's Down syndrome infant "tangible proof of anti-abortion convictions" is immoral and demeaning... The idea that a living, breathing child is being touted by the conservative right as a proof of ideology doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little. Maybe it's because all this talk of Palin's choice to sanction Trig's existence, despite his disability, makes me think of eugenics in a Brave New World /Gattaca sort of way. Or maybe it's because even I (zealous advocate of reproductive choice) distinguish between an embryo and... oh... a 4 month old child.

The second: I don't know what to make of all the talk about Sarah Palin's "balancing act" between family and career. This issue in general is one on which I am deeply conflicted. On one hand, I am supremely pleased that the media is making average Americans consider the compatibility of motherhood and public power/leadership. Indeed, it warms my heart (at least least in the sense that indigestion warms the heart) that the hillbilly-bigot set is actually able to support a woman candidate, period. [The downside to that? Refer to string of anti-Palin posts below]. On the other hand, I can't help but experience periodic moments of disgust when I think about how much the GOP is exploiting Plain's almost-exploding femininity. Although the McCain campaign has yet to say it outright, the message seems to be: "See, OUR token female candidate is beautiful (a "VILP"), nurturing, soft-spoken, and not a bit like that OTHER female politician and her Sisterhood of Traveling Pantsuits." Has anyone else noticed this? I will return to this topic again soon....

Response to Tonight's RNC / Sarah Palin Spectacle

1. Rudy Giuliani - you suck. Be quiet.
2. If Sarah Palin were a) Democrat, b) pro-choice, c) anti-gun, d) had reasonable views on prevention-based sex education, e) not homophobic, f) not cozy with big oil companies, g) had national political experience, h) had any kind of foreign policy experience, i) had gotten her passport in 1977 rather than 2007, i) understood that public resources for her special needs child require taxes that she and McCain want to cut, j) didn't continue to call herself a freaking hockey mom, or k).... I'll add more to this list later.... If, if, if, if, if - then I would really like her. She is a strong political figure and - yes - a great speaker.... but her beliefs sit at the polar opposite end of the political spectrum on almost every issue I can think of. I will not go so far as to that say I respect her politics (because I don't), but I can see why conservative women and men could rally around her. And yes, it scares me a little. But she's no Hillary; her policy positions are downright scary; and I still think Barack and Joe will win the election. So there.
3. I love (and when I say love I mean that I was really freaking annoyed) how Bristol Palin brought her baby-daddy on stage "in solidary" with the rest of the Palin family. I'm sure this will be sanctified by evangelicals and conservative pundits in the coming days, despite the fact that the same base of bigots crucified Jamie Lynn Spears over the last few months for her pregnancy... even though the younger Spears handled the situation exactly the same way as Bristol ("choosing" to keep her baby - again the language of choice - and settling down with the man who put the bun in the oven). F-you Sarah Palin, and all the small-minded GOPers, who believe in abstinence-only sex education.
   
4. When McCain came out to greet Palin and family, I couldn't help but think that the crowd's excitement would be too much for him and all that "heartbeat away" talk would become.... well, you know. I know! I'm a horrible person. But the man is a fossil. I can't believe he's being considered a stable choice for president.
5. Again, CNN demeans its reputation by interrupting political analysis after a historic speech to air some country creep's "Raisin' McCain" song in its entirety. Crass.
   
6. Juxtaposing the national anthem with the Pledge of Allegiance... was weird. I say it didn't work.
   

Jesus hates your wrinkly skin-tight dress, Rachel Lampa

As if my normal level of exposure to evangelical drivel isn't bad enough...

Last night I was horrified to bear witness to Christian-pop princess Rachel Lampa's savior-worshiping during CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention. I guess the GOP wants to set the record straight for any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc who might subscribe to its openly homophobic, anti-women agenda: "Christ loves you! Good Republicans - nay, good Americans - are Christian! Praise the Lord - and wear cute lip gloss and chunky belts while doing it!"

UGGGH. Really, CNN? You couldn't find anything else worthy to cover last night but Republican celebration of the ever-expanding assault on American secularism? Come on!

It's one thing to have to sit through politicians making requisite references to God (e.g., ending a speech with "God bless America" or "God speed," like Hillary did last week at the DNC to my chagrin). Such statements are almost ubiquitously included in every candidates' stump speeches as a standard of practice. Indeed, I am constantly frustrated by the inclusion of such comments by all politicians (especially Republicans!), though I recognize they're not going away any time soon and thus I forge on. (See any of the polls on Americans' willingness to vote for atheists versus other minority groups for insight on another topic for another post.)

What I can't understand is why the evangelical pop-industry's proselytizing should get to monopolize precious airtime on a network that touts itself as being one of the world's leaders in news and information delivery, with its pulse on all the important headlines of the moment. The coverage of Rachel Lampa's performance I watched last night was not quality coverage of the political highlights of a major party's election-year convention... It was barely distinguishable from a Michelle Branch concert. This does not belong on CNN, people.

Yuck.

Palin? Ha!

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." -Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign

Thanks, McCain, for a shockingly bone-headed choice for your VP candidate. Dems, it's time to capitalize on the obvious: the GOP has irresponsibly hedged its bets on a grossly inexperienced candidate for the vice presidency, in an act of sorely misguided scheming. McCain is trying to sell such a clear novice as being "ready for the presidency"... putting her literally a heartbeat away from the nation’s highest office. Keyword there being "heartbeat" - what's the chance that at 72 years old, those beats will putter out while in office? I'm just saying....

I really, really liked Linda Bergthold's reaction, so I'm putting it in full below. Enjoy:

I think we will look back at today as the day when the Republicans most certainly lost the Presidency. In choosing Sarah Palin of Alaska for Vice President, the Republicans have made a cynical but clever choice. At least they think it is clever. She is a woman, young (44 years old), a Governor (only two years), a mother (five children), pro-life, and pro-gun. But what is she not? She is NOT pro-choice. She has NO national experience. She has never been under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She is under investigation for some incident in Alaska that is messy and personal. She has no international experience. Her experience governing is in a very small state, famous for its "Bridge to Nowhere" kind of political graft. Her Republican colleague in that state, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption.

When Republicans and independents go into the voting booth, will they have the confidence to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket, knowing that John McCain has had several recurrences of his skin cancer, and will be the oldest President ever? Can they imagine Sarah Palin stepping into the Oval Office and dealing with all the problems we face right now? The Russians and the terrorists must be quaking in their boots.

It's a slap in the face of other Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, bless her heart, who was forced to stumble through an interview on TV trying to make the case for Palin whom she has never met. There are certainly women in the Republican party who were "in line" for this before Palin. Did the Rovian type advisors to McCain just cynically think that throwing a young attractive inexperienced woman into the mix would satisfy women who long to see a woman president? Women, and Republican women, are not so stupid as to fall for that! It is reminiscent of the Republicans putting up Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate just because he was black. Voters saw through that pretty quickly.

It's also a slap in the face of Democratic women voters. They don't get Hillary but they get Sarah as the first potential woman President? In fact, I can just hear Biden saying, "Sarah Palin, you are NO Hillary Clinton!" I would imagine that the few remaining Clinton supporters who are wondering if they should support John McCain are even more leery now. There is absolutely no overlap between the positions Hillary Clinton has fought her entire life for and Sarah Palin. The two women are not remotely substitutable. They are as different as they can be.

How will this cynicism play with American voters? It is insulting to women to suggest that just "any" woman will do!

This really is a ridiculous move.

OCD Poll Checking

I'm very excited about Pollster's homepage, which features a beautifully interactive map of mean poll results for all 50 states, including a breakdown of what that poll data means for estimated electoral votes. Although there's waaay too much red on that map for my taste, I really like the current estimate of electoral votes - Obama currently gets 260 while McCain gets 176.

Unfortunately, the site estimates that 102 votes are "Toss Ups." So Obama's "lead" essentially means nothing. Eh, this will be fun to watch in the coming months.

Thoughts on Biden

So now that any glimmer of hope that Senator Clinton might be named the democratic Veep candidate has been cruelly extinguished, it's time to offer some thoughts on Senator Biden.

1. I received the much anticipated text message announcing Biden as Obama's Veep choice at 3:08 AM CST this Saturday. Was that really necessary? No. Thanks for prompting a night of drunken restlessness.
   
2. I genuinely liked Biden in the debates of last summer. He's a "straight shooter" and one can't deny that he has solid expertise in foreign policy, especially. However, the "Introduction" video featured on the campaign's website is really lacking in sincerity. I was surprised at how poorly he comes off here. This is one of those moments that I can appreciate Barack's smooth, polished oratory.
   
3. Biden cost me four drinks due to unwise betting on my part. Technically not his fault, but I have given myself permission to be upset with him about it. It should have been Hill!!

NARAL Records

Senator Obama's voting and statement record on freedom of choice gets a 100% from NARAL Pro-choice America. Senator McCain? 0%.

Shiny happy highlight from Obama's statements:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America... I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies... As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy."
[From a statement by Sen. Obama on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2008. Full statement is available here]

Absolutely abysmal lowlight from McCain's musings on sexual health:

When asked about whether he supported supplying condoms to Africa to assist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, McCain had the following exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.
Reporter: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
[Adam Nagourney, McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, The New York Times, March 16, 2007.]

The Anti-Christ

I chuckle (or seethe, depending on the source) every time I hear someone speak with any degree of sincerity about the coming of the "anti-Christ" with respect to modern political figures. So you can imagine my response when I stumbled upon The Colonic's jump to this disgusting attack ad, perpetrated by none other than the anti-Christ himself... I mean, John McCain. (Click on "Web Ad: The One" to view the trash.)

The explicit Biblical reference (Moses parting the Red Sea) coupled with gratuitous religious imagery (shining rays of light hitting a cloud, a staircase; "god's Eye View" of planet Earth) are completely uncalled for and signal (as I suggested in response to Vanessa's post) an attempt by the McCain campaign to tap in to right-wing, extremist rumors that Obama is - literally - the anti-Christ.

As someone who works under the umbrella of strategic research and consulting, it takes very little energy to imagine the focus group(s) that inspired this ad... Or perhaps it was all the internet message-board chatter which convinced McCain's team that a solid group of Evangelicals subscribe to the notion that Obama is fulfilling prophesies of the Book of Revelations. (Just google "Obama anti-Christ" for 747,000 relevant - or shall I say irreverent - links to bullshit!)

I openly and willingly admit that I have criticized Senator Obama (harshly) in the past. But if there's one thing that can win a disgruntled Hillary supporter over to Barack's team, I'd say mutual disgust with the Republican opponent is a great start.

So cheers to you, Johnny Boy, for helping inspire some warm-happy-feelings for my friends on the other side of the Blue Line! And even more, for pissing me off enough to revive my dear Oh Kermie rants. god Speed.

NO-bama

I'm a few days late posting a link to this op-ed about Senator Obama's largely unfounded attacks on my gal Hill, but here it is anyway.

My favorite points?

Your position on the Iran Resolution. You criticized Sen. Clinton's vote in September supporting a Senate resolution asking the U.S. government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a "foreign terrorist organization," …. Yet you failed to disclose that you had co-sponsored a Senate Resolution (S. 970) in March 2007 that used exactly the same language to designate the IRG a "foreign terrorist organization."

And...

Your position on the Iraq war. You have criticized Sen. Clinton for supporting the October 2002 Iraq war resolution (just as the governor of your state, Rod R. Blagojevich, did when he was in the House of Representatives, as did former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost two arms and a leg in the Vietnam War, and 29 Democratic senators). You claim to have been opposed to that resolution before you became a U.S. senator.

Yet when you were asked in the fall of 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, how you would have voted on that resolution had you been a U.S. senator, you were quoted in The Chicago Tribune answering, “I don’t know.” Then in March 2007, your press secretary refused “eight times” to answer a New York Times reporter’s question as to why you couldn’t answer that question back in 2004. When pressed again, he said you refused to answer such a “hypothetical” question. So how can you accurately say that you opposed the war resolution when you said “I don’t know” — and how is it fair to criticize Sen. Clinton’s (and Gov. Blagojevich’s) judgment for doing so at that time — when she says today, “Had I known then what I know now [that there were no WMDs in Iraq], I would not have voted for that resolution”?

You also voted against Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) amendment in the summer of 2006 to set a deadline on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq (as did Sen. Clinton and most Senate Democrats). Yet I don’t think you have ever reminded voters about that vote since you began your presidential campaign.

More OhKermie posting to come in the weeks ahead... sorry for being MIA!

Sex Matters in '08

Like it or not, sex matters in this election. Even Texas Republicans say so!

Independent evidence indicates that her sex is a strong asset in seeking the Democratic nomination. And while it would be premature to say for sure that it will help in the general election, initial signs are that it will be a plus, something a prominent Texas Republican pollster says his party has failed to recognize.

"Republicans underestimate the very powerful symbolism and feel-good emotions that would accompany electing the first woman president," said Dr. David Hill of Houston, director of Hill Research Consultants. "It's a big deal."

And remember yesterday's post?

"Before this is over, Hillary's candidacy will have more in common with Amelia Earhart's first trans-Atlantic flight or Sally K. Ride's first trip into space than Helmsley's heartlessness," he wrote.

...Mark today on your calendar - it's the one time this year I'll agree with a Texan.

And in case the cowboy rhetoric isn't enough to convince you, some empirical evidence that the "uterus vote" makes a critical difference:

Andrew Kohut of the independent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said a study of 40 statewide elections showed that female Democrats did better against male Republicans, largely because they did better among women and no worse among men.

Though conceding that some find Mrs. Clinton "more polarizing" than some other female candidates, Mr. Kohut suggested she would enjoy a similar advantage. He said the Pew study showed that "the gender differences in support for Clinton at this early stage in the campaign are, on average, typical for Democratic women who run for statewide office."

Her advantage is most obvious in polls of prospective Democratic primary and caucus voters. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that she attracts 55 percent of women, compared with 44 percent of men. By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama gets 23 percent of women and 20 percent of men.

2008 will be so fun :)

A Note on that Glass Ceiling

... it's coming down.

Early this spring I wrote a hopeful piece about Clinton's bid for the presidency, her showing in the polls, and how the tradition of public opinion research supports her electability as a candidate. Since that time, Hillary's numbers and my support for the nation's first viable female presidential candidate have continued to soar (and yes, I recognize that I'm using biased and flamboyant language right now... I'm emotional).

Today especially, my support for Hillary was reaffirmed after watching footage from her Monday appearance The View. (Before you rush to say that I'm 2 days late, remember that I'm a full-time student with a 20-hour/week job and a campaign internship, so my View-watching is limited to late-night clip hunting on YouTube).

There still is a tougher standard for women, especially running for president. We’ve all been through it, in some way or another – where you go and you try to break a barrier, you do the best you can, and people are saying “I don’t like her clothes,” or “I don’t like her hair.” But I think we’re getting beyond that. One of the exciting parts of my campaign is how many people are so personally invested in this.

Everywhere I go around the country, there are two groups of people that I am particularly touched by. All these women in their nineties come to my events, and they come – they wait – sometimes they’re in wheelchairs or walkers, and they have their daughter or granddaughter bring them – and then when I’m going around shaking hands, they’ll say: ‘I’m 95 years old and I was born before women could vote. I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.’

The other group are parents who bring their children, particularly their daughters. After I make a speech, I go out and shake hands with everybody… I’ll hear a father or a mother lean over and say to their little girl, ‘See honey, you can be anything you want to be.’ I makes me get a welled-up sort of feeling, because my parents told me that. Not that it was true back then, but, we’ve broken a lot of barriers.

Say what you want about the relevance of political rhetoric espoused on a daytime talk show. Go ahead and question the Senator's anecdotes for their historical validity and criticize her for coming on to a women's program with a poignant message tailored specifically to that audience. I am already aware that the pundits are having a field day with Clinton's anecdotes. None of that changes the fact that I am incredibly touched by her statements.

Do I recognize that expensive message-testing and focus groups likely contributed to the poignancy of Clinton's words? Yes. Do I recognize that sex alone is not a reason to vote for a candidate? Absolutely. My support for Hillary runs deeper than her XX chromosomes, to those practical, "every day" affiliations that are so fundamental to identifying with a candidate. But Hillary's sex does make a difference to me, at least in distinguishing between the major Democratic contenders, and that's not something I can hide. Cheesey or naive as it sounds, I am proud to be a woman supporting a woman for president.

Criterion for Kucinich

I finally finished watching last week's YouTube Democratic debate, and it brought me to a very important conclusion...

THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUST HAVE EYEBROWS.

Obama Gives New Meaning to "Substance Free"

Back in February I complained about Obama's dramatic, long-winded way with language and his fuzzy plans (if you can call them that) for the presidency. Now with five more months on the campaign trail and ample time to develop specific platforms on key issues, critics' claims that the Senator is "all style, no substance" ring true.

Obama's embarrassingly vague essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs should have been a veritable ribbon-cutting on his agenda for American foreign policy. Instead, the Senator gave us very little by the way of concrete plans and opted once again to ride the waves of rhetoric, highlighting the issues we all know should be addressed with what might as well be an invisible pen. Amitai Etzioni at the Huffington Post is right on in his criticism of the lackluster piece:

Obama's favorite term, repeated ad nauseum, ad infinitum, is vision. What we need, the Senator writes, is "vision." We need a "visionary leadership" and "a new vision of leadership." This is, of course, all too true but also tells us very little as to which vision of foreign policy this new leader would ask us to follow. Obama, like most political candidates without a clear agenda, still manages to be quite clear as to what we are not to do. We should not retreat into Fortress America. We should not get out of Iraq in an "irresponsible" way. And we cannot stop fighting terrorism. So far so good. So far so little.

Now read Obama. He calls for the United States to provide "global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." These lines are about as vacuous as they come. Such far-from-inspirational prose ("grounded leadership," "share a common security") does not set Obama aside from most if not all other candidates. They lack a substantive vision that one can get one's hands around and draw on to guide a foreign policy.

Obama has charisma. Obama has style. Obama has a vision. But - like a person afflicted with cataracts vainly attemting to obtain a driver's license - that vision is grossly insufficient to inspire a Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Spielberg Endorses Clinton!

Steven Spielberg jumped on Hillary's official bandwagon today:

"I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."

Great words from a great man. This just made my day :)

I Am Woman, Hear Me Vote... For Hillary Clinton

Over the past few months I've engaged in ongoing debate with multiple individuals regarding Hillary's popularity among American women. I've consistently maintained that many women will be moved to vote for Hillary simply for the fact that she is a woman. Because the U.S. has never seen a truly viable female candidate for the presidency, I believe that many women are excited by Clinton's presence in the race and will favor her as a candidate because they identify with her gender identity. Of course, there will be women (I know a few of them) who completely reject Hillary for reasons other than her gender, and who disregard such a (trivial?) trait as gender in choosing to favor one candidate over another. But I contend that the gender issue is extremely relevant to the election, and that Hillary's femininity might even be a mobilizing factor for women who otherwise might not make it out to the polls.

Today an article in the Washington Post supports my theory, based on some fabulously fun polling data:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

Campaign advisers say they expect Obama to pick up support from all categories of voters once they get to know him better, and that could change the structure of the race. But for now, women appear to be playing an outsized role in shaping it and could tip the scale toward the winner.

Let's hope we can help tip the scales, ladies!

Shattering the Glass or Wiping it Down? The History of Public Opinion Research on Female Presidential Candidates & Implications for Clinton's Campaign

At the height of her short-lived bid for the American presidency in 1988, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder famously told the press: “When people ask me why I am running as a woman, I always answer, ‘What choice do I have?’” Although her ironic response successfully called attention to the inherent gender-bias associated with such a question, Schroeder was ultimately unable to shake public skepticism at the notion of a female front-runner in the Democratic primary. When the excited buzz surrounding her candidacy failed to produce significant funds to support a competitive campaign, Schroeder’s quest for a seat in the Oval Office ended abruptly with a tearful press conference that was endlessly mocked by critics of the day (Tickner, 1992). Twenty years later, a new woman has emerged from the political landscape with an eye on capturing the highest office in the land. But unlike Schroeder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is generating both the buzz and the bucks needed to mount a bold campaign for the presidency. As analysts continue to place Clinton’s campaign finances at the top of the list for the 2008 frontrunners, stereotypes of female domesticity, submission, and apathy seem dusty vestiges of great grand-pappy’s political dogma. Yet despite the unprecedented optimism with which Clinton-enthusiasts regard her gendered presidential campaign, a vast and complex body of public opinion research prompts continued questions about gender discrimination in the minds of voters and the true elect-ability of a presidential hopeful such as Hillary Clinton. An analysis of the evolution of gender bias in public opinion studies and the recent profusion of polling data for Clinton and her fellow presidential hopefuls will reveal that Americans finally seem primed to elect a woman president – as long as they find that her positions on national and foreign policy are superior to her opponents’.

Social scientists have long been fascinated with American attitudes toward female politicians, with inquiry into the public’s willingness to vote for a woman president fundamental in their historic investigations. Although significant numbers of female representatives in senatorial and gubernatorial offices were a dream until the early 1990s, questions probing the willingness of citizens to elect a woman president first appeared in national opinion surveys as early as 1937 (Carpini & Fuchs, 1993). In a survey that would become the first in a long series of investigations into national gender biases, the Gallup Organization asked respondents whether they would “vote for a woman for president if she were qualified in every other respect” (1937). Indeed, the blatantly discriminatory language of this question reflected the cynical public sentiment at the time, with 64% of respondents saying they would not vote for a woman. In hindsight public opinion scholars have been deeply critical of the leading language of this first question, noting that “the use of the word ‘other’ clearly suggests to the respondent that simply being a woman makes one unqualified for the job” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Future researchers were more careful in framing questions about women candidates, and the word “other” was dropped from survey lexicon completely in 1939 (Falk & Kenski, 2006).

Yet despite long running researcher-recognition of problems in framing questions about women presidential candidates, modern opinion surveys persist in using loaded language to ask respondents if they would vote for a female president. Recent surveys from the most respected polling agencies in the United States continue to ask questions such as: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a woman, would you vote for that person?” or “If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?” (USA Today & Gallup Poll, 2007; Newsweek & Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2006). Although such wording is by and large an improvement on the 1937 prototype, the underlying assumption in each of these examples is that being a woman is an inherent disadvantage to any individual seeking office, “clearly prim[ing] questions about a woman’s qualifications” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Of course, our country has never had a female president or an official female nominee for the office, so pollsters may make a case for the necessity of such wording; but ultimately this persistence of biased language seems indicative of enduring social norms regarding women leaders.

This is not to say, however, that public sentiment has lain stagnate on the issue of willingness to vote for a woman president. In her acclaimed analysis of Americans’ changing responses to the question, Myra Ferree found that public opinion moved significantly in favor of a woman president between 1958 and 1972, with the most noticeable change occurring between 1969 and 1972 (Feree, 1974, p. 392):

Change over time in percentage of respondents willing to vote for a female presidential candidate
Year of Survey	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
1958	55%	39%
1959	58	38
1963	56	40
1967	57	38
1969	55	38
1972	70	25

In that final period, the number of respondents willing to vote for a woman candidate for president jumped 15% (from a slim majority of 55% to almost two-thirds of the sample population), and the number of those unreceptive to a female president declined at a comparable rate. As may be logically inferred, “the increase in positive attitudes toward a woman for president coincides with the impact of the feminist movement… beginning in the 1970s” (Mandel, 2006, p.5). Since the late 1990s (and the many monumental advances women have made into the public sphere), positive response rates to the woman-candidate question have remained steady at above 90% of most samples.

Indeed, these numbers paint a promising picture for a candidate like Hillary Clinton – with deep running campaign funds and a prominent name among the American people to boot – but not all public opinion research paints U.S. voters as so accepting of the prospect of a woman’s leadership. A significant number of social scientists believe that the social desirability effect (whereby individuals feel the need to conform to perceived expectations of interviewers) may be accountable for the large percentage of survey respondents who say they are willing to vote for a female presidential candidate (Falk & Kenski, 2006; Streb et al., 2006). Although this effect is extremely difficult to examine or manipulate in a research setting, those who believe that social desirability has an impact on modern survey respondents wary of being labeled as “sexist” would agree that the effect may explain significantly lower positive responses to survey questions regarding the nation’s overall readiness for a woman president. Carole Kennedy writes: “While most Americans report that they personally would be willing to vote for a woman president, other polls show that a majority of Americans still believe that the country is not ready to elect a woman president” (Kennedy, 2001). Kennedy’s findings reflect those in a February 2007 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, in which only 60% of respondents felt that America is actually ready for a woman president (CNN & Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Such a narrow majority of individuals who believe the country is ready to elect a woman to the Oval Office suggests the existence of very real reservations among American voters about the capability of a woman to serve as president.

But if this pessimistic view of America’s willingness to elect a woman president is truly the case, then why has Hillary Clinton come out with such strong numbers in poll after poll measuring voter attitudes toward the 2008 presidential election? Since the field of both Democratic and Republican 2008 presidential hopefuls has been solidly defined in recent months, Senator Clinton has maintained a strong presence in polls and is often ranked by respondents as the top Democratic candidate for president. Recent studies of Democrat-leaning adults conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post consistently place Clinton as the number one contender in the Democratic primary, with a 17% lead over her nearest opponent (Barack Obama) as of mid-April (2007). And while it is certainly true that a fair amount of variation in these results exists (one April poll gives Clinton a mere 5% lead over Obama) the salient piece of information here is that a woman is actually topping the presidential polls against real, live male opponents (NBC News & Wall Street Journal, 2007). Hillary’s continued success (some might say domination) in these polls suggest that speculation about the social desirability effect in studies about women’s general elect-ability are irrelevant to Senator Clinton’s campaign. While one may argue that an anti-sexist social desirability effect might influence individuals’ answers about their theoretical willingness to vote for a woman, it is quite a stretch to say that respondents would let this effect influence their self-identified preferences for actual candidates in the 2008 primaries.

Furthermore, Clinton’s leadership among other Democratic nomination candidates is consistent in most of the measured sub-group populations in national polls. Where Hillary falters (with Democratic-leaning: men aged 18 to 49, college graduates, 18 to 29 year olds, Midwesterners, and $100,000+ income earners; who prefer Obama), she maintains a significant share of preference votes with arguably more numerous and hence influential voting populations (Pew Research, 2007). In light of her truly stellar showing in current polls, it seems that Clinton’s gender will be much less of an issue (if an issue, at all) than her specific positions on national and foreign policy. With polling numbers that are virtually indistinguishable from all-male presidential races in the past, Hillary’s femininity seems immaterial to her viability as a leader among potential voters who continue to positively rank her alongside male candidates. As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter cleverly explains, Clinton’s “hair and hemline wont be issues [for 2008 voters]; her muscular national-security approach and her famous husband will” (2006). This dynamic is easily observed in the general election trial heats where variations in Clinton’s performance against prominent Republican candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney may be logically explained by partisan preference and policy standpoints. Indeed, her 1% margin of loss to Giuliani, 1% victory over McCain, and 15% winning margin over Romney indicate that Hillary has as good a chance as any historic Democratic presidential hopeful in winning the race for the Oval Office, provided she gets the nomination (Princeton Survey Research and Newsweek, 2007).

So although the age-old question of whether Americans would vote for a female presidential candidate has elicited confusing and contradictory responses from voters over time, recent studies of the 2008 presidential hopefuls suggest that the United States is indeed ready to elect a woman president – given that her stances on major issues are in line with the ideologies of a majority of voters. In an age where Hillary Clinton is the current favored Democratic presidential nominee, public opinion research into American’s willingness to vote for a woman for president has evolved from the theoretical to the specific and influential. As the first-ever female presidential candidate to possess substantial financial resources, national visibility, and respected political credentials all at once, Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated that she is an attractive candidate to many likely 2008 election voters. Now, Clinton must merely prove to voters that her policy positions and leadership experience are superior to her opponents – a task that is similarly required of any other presidential candidate, regardless of gender.

Fun New Ideology Rankings

Straight from Pew Research (use link to view enlarged version of scale):

Republican and Democratic voters express very different views of the ideologies of the leading Democratic candidates. Asked to rate each candidate's ideology on a scale from one to six, where one represents a very conservative position and six very liberal, Hillary Clinton gets an overall score of 4.4. But Republican voters, on average, rate Clinton as 5.0, compared with Democratic voters who score Clinton as a 4.2. Fully 58% of Republican voters give Sen. Clinton the most liberal score possible - a six on the six-point scale - compared with just 22% of Democratic voters.

Question mark: Why is an ideology scale of the primary field including data on Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and "Dubya"? And is anyone else (i.e., Dr. Mack) surprised that the mean ideology self ranking for Democrats is exactly the same as the mean ideology ranking for John Edwards? Does this mean anything for the Edwards campaign and '08 primaries?