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.

:(

Iran, Iran, I ran to post this blog

There's been quite a flury in the blogosphere today regarding the controversial Senate vote on Iran's Revolutionary Guard. One worried volunteer calling into Hillary's LA headquarters summarized the hysteria by frantically asking, "Is it true that Hillary Clinton voted to go to war with Iran today!?"

No, people. No. Senator Clinton did not vote to go to war with Iran. But her vote today was indeed a monumental move that I know will need to think about for a while before truly understanding the implications.

In a nutshell: Clinton voted in the majority today for the Kyl-Lideberman Amndment, which designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224. In effect, this:

...provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism...
To block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates. (Wiki)

In short, the Revolutionary Guard is now included on the list of individuals and organizations indentified by Executive Order 13224. Of course, what makes this a flaming ball of controversy is the fact that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is now the first and only official armed unit of a sovereign state to be included on the list of banned terrorist groups. Quite obviously, this complicates diplomacy. (Understatement?)

Beyond that, I don't have much to say. I'm not informed enough on the issue and potential implications. But at the very least I thought this would be an important item to mention on the blog and hopefully get some input/debate/stream-of-consciousness-type discussion on the issue. Let me know what you think.

Frustrations of a Capable Woman

A certain Dr. Mack recently brought to my attention the fact that my current legacy in the blogosphere is a criticism of Dennis Kucinich’s eyebrows (albeit a poignant one). So after much soul-searching and grave, meditative reflection, I have decided that this is not the mark Oh Kermie is destined to make on the internet. Au contraire, mes amies (note the use of the feminine). I have far greater designs for this dear little blog of mine.

For today, that design shall include a much-overdue condemnation of the systematic use and abuse of gender-specific pro-nouns and nouns. Mind you – this is not a topic that is new to Oh Kermie (or my prolific friends The Colonic and On a Diner Napkin). What is more, the general point I am trying to make has been expressed time and again by feminists everywhere. But regardless, in the last few months I have become increasingly sensitive to the specific injuries that I am about to discuss – especially since the perpetrators of these crimes are often my would-be mentors.

Yeah, I’m talking to you: USC Political Science professors.

It is one thing for a professor to verbally acknowledge an anatomical difference between male and female students. For example: “Where is Jane? She did not show up for her paper conference today” vs. “Where is Dick? He did not show up for his paper conference today.” Similarly, the gendered use of pronouns and nouns is acceptable when describing the actions of political leaders, figures in history, or pertinent others who happened to identify as a woman or a man (i.e., “We should remember the women who championed the nineteenth amendment and be thankful for all they did for American daughters of the twentieth century and beyond”). I am not even offended (feel free to take issue here) by references to the “Founding Fathers” instead of the rather new alternative of the “Framers,” given that the names signed to the Declaration of Independence belonged to men. (The fact that it’s a timeless alliterative device also helps…As many of you know, I’m a sucker for alliteration.)

However, I am absolutely outraged to hear my supposedly distinguished and learned political science professors automatically revert to the masculine when speaking about unspecified or hypothetical political leaders. As a senior who is now completely immersed in upper division Poli-Sci courses, I would expect to find my esteemed educators more sensitive to the myriad stereotypes and implied social expectations embedded in the continual use of “he” when describing any situation in which an undefined political actor may operate. I am sick of hearing about how the ambiguous “he,” a member of California congress, would react to proposed amendments to “his” legislation from the Appropriations Committee… or how “he,” the as-yet-undetermined Democratic presidential nominee, will fare against Republican opponents in 2008.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you should know that women make up a quarter of the seats in state legislatures across the nation, and the Democrat leading in national primary polls by about 20 points is Hillary Clinton – the proud owner of a uterus. Assuming that the professors leading my political science courses had to abandon the cover of their respective rocks to earn their PhD’s, I am profoundly upset that this discriminatory lexicon continues.

When half of the students (or more) sitting before you are ambitious women yearning for a quality education that will help propel them to careers in politics, law, and a host of other fields, you should be careful that your words do not reinforce limiting stereotypes of who may or may not participate in American law and government. While I am certainly not accusing any of my professors (male and female!) of utilizing such discriminatory language intentionally, I am disappointed that they routinely overlook verbal equality in the name of convenience or acquiescence to society’s default pronoun (“he”).

Furthermore, I am profoundly disturbed by a professor’s recent reference to the number of hours “girls” in his class presumably spend getting ready before coming to lecture (he pegged it at three – my, what use we Trojan women make of our time). It is truly unacceptable to belittle the exceptional women of USC by calling them as you would your ten year old “little girl.” If you must pick a term to counter references to the “guys” in your class, try to use the correct equivalent of “gals.” Don’t insult my age and maturity with a noun meant for school children.

Respect the capable minds of those you should teach and inspire; don’t disappoint us with limiting terminology and reveal your willingness to reinforce gender stereotypes.

(For more on this topic, read this 2005 piece from CampusProgress.org.)