I'm Done Apologizing, Part II

Brief recap of yesterday's post:
- I am sick of people telling me why I am or am not a feminist
- I am sick of apologizing for who I am and what I believe
- Not agreeing with one feminist notion does not disqualify someone from being feminist
- The Guerrilla Girls pissed me off by dictating who is and who isn't feminist based on what they believe and who they vote for...

Now, onto the good stuff:
The second thing the Guerrilla Girls said that pissed me off was when they told me to vote for Clinton because she is a woman. No thanks. I chose to vote for a candidate based on their policy, not based on what's in between their legs, their skin color, their sexual orientation, their religion, etc. As cool as it would be to have a black, lesbian, Jew in the white house if along with those things she is also pro-war, anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, anti-immigration, anti-environment, she will mostly likely not get my vote. Get it? With the Guerrilla Girls' logic, we might as well elect Condi or Ann Coulter...

The Guerrilla Girls aren't the first ones to tell me that if i don't vote Clinton then i am not a feminist. I have heard this a handful of times over the past few months and it really pisses me off. As much as i wanted to avoid disclosing who i voted for on my blog i think you can probably guess. Even though i have spent more blog space and effort supporting Clinton and reacting to the sexist shit she's gone through over the course of her campaign, politically, i support Obama. Before you chew my head off, let me explain. As soon as i tell people, especially those who know me well, that i voted for Obama i am instantly put on the defensive having to justify my vote. So fine, i'll do it here as well. I voted for Obama, I did not vote against women. So seriously, if one more person tells me that i'm not the feminist they thought i was because i didn't vote for a woman i will (WILL) punch them in the face. Seriously, next time you see me, try me ;)

Either candidate will make an outstanding president and I will wholeheartedly support whoever is chosen as the Democratic nominee. I am so very glad to see such strong candidates up there and am even more glad that we will have either a black man or a white woman as president. But my vote is not based on the demographic they represent. Let's rewind to the Guerrilla Girls for a second. They did a beautiful segment on peace and how we must (MUST) vote pro-peace from now on and anti-war. About 5 minutes later they told us all to vote for Clinton because she is a woman. Politically, Clinton and Obama have VERY similar views and ideas. And i even think that if elected, they will both surround themselves with equally as qualified and intelligent people. I think both candidates will do great things for our country and for change. But let's get one thing straight, Obama's platform is MUCH more pro-peace than Clinton's. This is why voting for someone based on their sex vs their politics is stupid. I'm not even talking about her 2002 pro-war vote because that is, like, so two months ago. I am talking about comments like this one from her campaign website that seem like a slippery slope and make me exceedingly nervous: "She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."

Compare that to Obama's anti-war stance and you'll understand where i'm coming from:
"I will end the war in Iraq... I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda... And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, 'You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.'" — Barack Obama, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007

Here is some more info on Obama's anti-war platform:

• In 2002, he voted against the war in Iraq
• In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail
• In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops
• In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors
• In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008
• In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

There are two reasons i voted for Obama: one political and one socio-political. Policy wise, Obama is more pro-peace than Clinton. I am ready for a president that values diplomacy, collaboration, and peace. Socio-politically it's all in the numbers for me. I firmly believe that Obama will get more underrepresented voters to the polls. If Clinton receives the Democratic nomination, I am afraid that the voters who would have gone out to vote for Obama will not vote for Clinton (I fear that they simply won't vote at all.) Whereas i'm pretty sure that Clinton's supporters will vote for Obama if he is elected the Democratic nominee. Numbers wise, it's smarter to elect Obama so that come presidential elections, we (the democrats) will win.

I DO believe it's time for a female president. I also believe it's time for a black president. So what?! To elect a president simply because she is female is just as sexist as electing a president because he is male. I will vote for the candidate that makes the most sense to me, not because of the demographic they represent. And once again, all together now: VOTING FOR A MALE OVER A FEMALE DOES NOT MAKE ME ANY LESS OF A FEMINIST!

The Message we Send by Bashing Hillary Clinton

If you read only one thing today, please let it be this.

All i can say to Schultz's article is: "YES YES YES YES YES!"

Obama: The First Woman President

Although I agree with most of what the article says, I must admit that my instinctual reaction to Newsweek's story was anger. I was outraged at two things:

1. Even with a female in the race, the MALE receives credit for being the "first woman president."

2. Just because Obama expresses optimism, modesty, collaboration, etc. these values somehow make him automatically "feminine." We as a nation have to realize that these qualities make us strong and possessing them, especially in combination with "masculine" values, is what will make a strong leader: male OR female.

Check out the article, it's interesting. Frankly, this line sums it up: "Elections aren't about leadership. They are about winning"If Clinton used Obama's tactics she would not have made it past the first caucus. Likewise, Obama's more "feminine" approach is congruent with his platform of "change" (it is a big change for a male candidate to express some of the qualities and values that Obama expresses). Is Clinton really as cold and authoritarian as she makes us believe? Is Obama really as warm and fuzzy? I doubt it. But these are the roles they both play in order to get elected.

Does Obama's platform of conversation and collaboration make him "the first woman president" (similar to Bill Clinton being the first black president)? What are your thoughts?

Have you been Super Tuesdayed enough?

I'm rootin' for Obama because he's damn sexy...

And for Clinton because I want to see Ann Coulter campaign for her come presidential elections :)

Either way, we can't lose... 2008 is going to kick ass, i'm so psyched!

Breaking News: Hillary Clinton is a REAL PERSON with REAL EMOTIONS!

News media is in a frenzy after Clinton shows debatably genuine emotion in response to a question asked by an undecided voter earlier today. The woman asks, "How did you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?"

I'd cry too, but for different reasons. Seriously, who asks that bullshit? "how do you get ready...who does your hair?" Really?! You are an undecided voter and have a lead candidate in front of you and that's the question you ask... What would she ask if Obama or Edwards was there? Certainly something more politically relevant.

I am really impressed though with Clinton's ability to turn a ridiculous question into an opportunity to show emotion, passion, and intellect. Here was her teary-eyed response:

I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds. We do it, each one of us, against difficult odds. We do it because we care about our country. Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through. This is one of the most important elections we'll ever face. So as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right—it's tough when the easiest thing is pizza. I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. I'm going to do everything I can to make my case, and then the voters get to decide.

All joking aside, when i think about the current state our country is in, i want to cry also. After what the Bush administration has done, we desperately need a determined and focused leader in office. Is Clinton the right person for that job? I don't know... but she is the one i seem to be defending more and more lately...

The truth is, i'm fed up... with the media, with the general population, even with various friends and family when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The point is when she's strong and steadfast she is viewed as uptight, unapproachable, and too "masculine." Now when she shows vulnerability and emotion she is being too feminine and obviously not suited for the role of president. Spit it out people, what are you really saying? You're saying that women shouldn't be president because when push comes to shove, it's a (white, straight, Christian) man's job. And no matter how hard any "other" tries to fit the status quo, there's just no way to win.

I hope this election is different. It's time for a change in our country, and "change" seems to be the operative, buzz word nowadays which is a great thing in my mind.

Back to Clinton: was this whole teary-eyed, passionate, emotional response orchestrated by her campaign? Maybe... But this is politics people, and in 2008 it's a dirty race.

Below are some very well thought out and intelligent reactions to the article (read: sarcasm). I thought they would be fun to post here for your reference. Via Newsweek:

Comment: Do we really want a president who cries when the going gets tough?

Comment: Sure, I want a president that breaks and cries under pressure. NOT!!!!!!!Hillary can't even come close to being the statesman Muskie was, don't insult him by the comparison. Hilbillary admitted it. It is not about politics, it is "PERSONAL". Yes, her quest for power, and not politics.Don't let the crocodile tears fool you my democrat sheep friends.In short Hillary Clinton can't cut the mustard as President.

Comment: All I'd like to know is, how did she get that slice of onion into her handkerchief? If on the outside chance that it wasn't faked, then I'd say that the last thing this Nation needs is a crybaby with her finger on the nuclear trigger. "BooHoo.....you were mean to me!".....BOOM!

Comment: Thanks, Hillary. Thanks for setting women back oh-so-many decades. Appreciate it. Really I do.
(i don't get this one - how did she set women back?)

Oh and here's a doozy:
Comment: hahahahaha...what a cry baby. She needs to grow up before she gets her ticket to the white house. I'm surprised she hasn't ordered a death sentence on her opposition yet. I mean, we all know that's what she did to JFK Jr when he challenged her for the Senate seat in NY. Damn right we're more educated here on the West Coast. We know all about the Clinton Regime and their conniving schemes. It's too bad Hillary had her husband pull the trigger on John John. The country would have been better with that young honest Kennedy alive.

Even this, pseudo-positive comment left me cringing:
Comment: I find it funny that she is resorting to tears at this point. She's never shown a vulnerable side, a womanly side before. She's played hardball with the big dogs, and now, polls show she is down in N.H. and all the sudden the tears come out? I feel for her, this country needs a woman president, but not her.
(why is a "womanly side" parallel to a "vulnerable side"?)

Happy Day After the Iowa Caucus!

Sorry i've been a little MIA. I'm actually spending the week on vacation in North Carolina visiting friends :)

However, i couldn't pass up a chance to write about the Iowa caucus:

Obama and Fuckabee: Any thoughts?

Here are mine:

First i'd like to ask the general population, along with political analysts, the media, and government officials to start focusing on Clinton's politics rather than the fact that she is a woman. On a personal note, as of right now i'm not voting for Clinton come February 5th. There are actually tons of reasons to critique Clinton based on her politics and I agree with many of those who do so. However, no one really ever seems to. Instead people focus on the fact that she has a vagina. Clinton is female. And she's a forerunner for president! Get the fuck over it and move on to her politics. Then we can have some real political conversations. Here's a very pertinent example of something you can do to change the dynamics of how Clinton is seen: If/when referring to her with one name, call her Clinton rather than Hillary! Listening to political analysts and reporters last night i couldn't get over the fact that we had three candidates neck in neck: Obama, Edwards, and "Hillary"... seriously? I can't think of a better way to show someone that you don't take them seriously and that they don't have your respect than to call them by their first name while everyone else is addressed by their last name.

Truth be told, I'd prefer Obama, Edwards, and even Kucinich (although he's a space cadet) to Clinton. I don't agree with some of her key policies but find myself more defensive of her than any other candidate because of all the misogyny thrown her way.

Moving on...

On one hand, the thought of Huckabee gaining GOP support terrifies me. On the other, i'd much prefer him to take the republican nomination and lose by a long shot... I predict that he will alienate the moderates and either lose in later primaries or (definitely) in the general election.

I suppose i'd be more nervous if someone like McCain got elected, he'd actually have a chance at beating the dem nominee.

My only real fear for Fuckabee is that he's really smooth. The media loves to talk up his musician side, which makes him more relatable and he definitely has charisma. He has a sense of humor and charm, those are two scary characteristics in someone so extreme and so into what he's selling. What's even more scary is that he seems to genuinely believe all the radical politics he's endorsing... his beliefs paired with his personality are a scary combination (especially since now it's obvious he's gaining support). My fear is that a lot of the American population doesn't do their research and doesn't really get to know the candidates. Instead, they would vote on first impressions and Huckabee gives off a hell of a first impression.

However, the Iowa exit polls showed 60% of the GOP voters were Evangelical Christians. Also, polls showed that immigration was the top issue for those who voted. I don't believe either of these demographics are representative of the population, even within the GOP.

Whoever wins the republican nomination will have an extremely difficult time gaining widespread republican support, especially since candidates' religion seems to be such an important characteristic this term.

The other interesting thing i heard from NPR is that the gender gap, at least on the democratic side, was very wide. Among women, Clinton did as well as Obama but received only 23% of the vote among men. This tells us one of three things: 1. men are still reluctant to elect a female president on the sole reason of her being a woman; 2. women are voting for Clinton solely because she is a women; 3. one group (male or female voters) are more invested in the candidates politics and vote solely based on policy and not sex of candidate.

Some interesting demographics from last night:

• Six in 10 GOP voters said they were born again or evangelical Christians, and by far the largest share (almost half) supported Huckabee.
• Romney led among non-evangelical voters, getting about a third of their support.
• More than a third of Republicans said having the same religious beliefs as their candidate was very important, and of that group just over half favored Huckabee.
• More than half of voters younger than age 30 were supporting Obama, and he even had a roughly 2-to-1 lead over her among those age 30 to 44. Clinton had a decisive lead among the oldest voters.
• As in past Iowa caucuses and other presidential nomination contests, the Democratic turnout was predominantly female, while a majority of Republicans were male.
• Early Democratic caucus-goers were a little younger on average than their Republican counterparts.

Oh are there actual issues to consider? Looking past religion and demographics:

Given three choices, just over a third of Democrats said Iraq was the chief issue facing the country, with about the same number naming the economy. Healthcare was close behind. Obama had the most support among those naming Iraq and the economy, while the three candidates were close among those citing healthcare.

What are ya'll thoughts? Who do you predict will win the primaries, and just as importantly, who do you predict will be appointed as a running mate to the nominee?

In the words of Jon Stewart, i can't wait to see what happens in this "clusterfuck to the whitehouse!"