Dear John McCain, You Are NOT "My Friend"

Dear Senator John McCain,

First and foremost, you are NOT my friend. Addressing me as such 19 times* does not change the fact that you creep me out a great deal, i disagree with you on a core level, and if you are elected president i fear for your health mostly because Governor Palin is no where close to ready to lead our country. I also would like to give you some advice. When asked a debate question, please try to respond to said question rather than ramble on in an accusatory and condescending tone. Also, be a bit more careful with your "jokes." Mostly because they all came off as bitter and hostile. A joke that fell especially short was the one in which you laughed about needing hair transplants in relation to health coverage. This is not funny because while you may only have to worry about your balding scalp, others have actual, substantial, health concerns that they cannot afford to treat. Also, addressing Senator Obama as "that one" is incredibly patronizing, and may even come off as racist (which of course you are not, right? wink wink). I would also like to offer some math guidance: a "first" priority means that it is number one on the list so when you said, "I can tell you right now the security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority right after our nation's security" you were a bit mistaken because that would make it your second, not first, priority. Also, the correct grammar is "is my first priority" because you are referring to security and priority which are both singular nouns, not "are my first priority." Lastly, you excitedly stated, "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him." What exactly did you mean by this? Because if you know where Osama bin Laden is and how to capture him it seems a bit unpresidential of you not to speak up sooner. I realize that "debating" and running a presidential campaign must challenging work and as such i would like to end on a positive note. I was very glad to see that you are able to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, unlike Bush or Palin.

Sincerely,
Galina

wow, writing this made me feel significantly better... who knew? :)

*all direct quotes and "my friends" count via CNN transcript

ETA: Habladora signed on, anyone else in? Don't worry i won't accidentally send him this letter... or will i? hehehehe...

The Truth Will Set You Free

I realize that campaign ads by nature are designed to be extreme, shocking, and sometimes stretch the truth. The thing is, we don't need to lie or use extreme tactics when campaigning against the GOP since stating the facts is shocking and outrageous enough.

If you have some time, watch these videos. They're all short but you'll gain a whole new perspective on the "straight talk express."

The last video is terrific but the third may be my favorite, here's the dialogue:

Interviewer: "Earlier this week...talked about it being unfair that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control..."

McCain (interrupts her) with: "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue"

Interviewer: "But you voted against coverage of birth control in the past, is that still your position?"

McCain: "Looking at my voting record on it, I, uh, I, um, don't recall the vote right now, but i'll be glad to look at it and get back to you as to why, i don't...." (trails off...)

Interviewer: "I guess her statement was that it is unfair that health insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?"

8 second pause

McCain: "I don't know enough about it to give you a* informed answer because i don't recall the vote, i cast thousands of votes in the senate, but i will get back to you on it... i don't usually duck an issue but i... i'll try to get back to you"




*not to be nitpicky but um... it's an informed answer, not a informed answer... geez...

My Thoughts on Sarah Palin

My mom called last week and exclaimed, "you must be thrilled McCain chose a woman for VP!" Then she asked me (in all seriousness) who i was going to vote for now that there was a woman in the picture. Up until that moment i didn't think that Palin would earn votes simply for having a vagina. I'll be honest, i am sometimes (usually) sexist when choosing doctors. I always go to a woman because i know that she has worked harder than most men in her class to get there. I also know she had to prove herself not only as a doctor but as a female doctor and that means she is probably more qualified for medicine than most of the men in her field. I know that she has faced sexism and has been overlooked for positions. Truth is, i may be wrong in my assumptions but it makes me feel like i am going to a more qualified, harder working person when i imagine the road that got them to where they are. Sexist? Yes. Accurate? Probably, but also not in all cases. My (il?)logic doesn't translate into politics though. Politicians are carefully bred and hand selected, not necessarily for hard work or qualifications but for fit. This is why i (and many many women) would never vote for Palin solely because she is female. In fact, polls found that women are more skeptical of Palin than men and that the Obama-Biden ticket understands the issues and concerns of women best.

Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed last week illustrating that, "Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger." Steinem writes:

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need... So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Although Palin's inexperience scares me, what makes me more fearful is her inexpertness combined with her extreme (and often insane) positions. For example, Palin believes that creationism should be taught in public schools. She also does not believe that global warming exists. She believes that we should face the effects of global warming, but not that humans have been at all accountable for the damage. Her environmental opinions are deplorable: she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, a position that even most republicans disagree with. Palin opposes gun control, you know, because the government doesn't have the right to tell us what to do with our gun... but she supports the government's control over women's bodies. Because though we are smart and freethinking enough to shoot guns (and possibly do damage to other people's bodies), we certainly are not smart and freethinking enough to control our own bodies. There's phallic symbolism in there somewhere...

Another tactic i can't quite grasp is why it is so important to paint candidates as relatable. Palin is your average "hockey mom." Obama is the epitome of "rags to riches." I know it's important to humanize candidates but you know what? I don't want my president (or veep) to be an "average" person, I want my elected officials to be much smarter than me, better decision makers, more qualified to govern than i (or any "average person") would be. Back to my medical comparisons, let's put this in different terms: if i was going to have surgery, i wouldn't want an average person cutting me open; i would want someone skilled with a knife. I would want the best fucking surgeon out there. Just like i want the best people in office, not average hockey moms, because if anything, illustrating Palin as "average" and relatable makes her look even less qualified in my eyes. And her record does that for her already, no trite tactics necessary.

Obviously they aren't average. They are in a position to run for office. Obviously that takes (at the very least) money and power. It's insulting to try and fool me into believing they're average, and suggesting that's a good thing...

But i also think we're underestimating Palin a bit. She's the perfect person for McCain to have chose. A perfect, pearl wearing, no hair out of place, gun shooting, oil drilling, anti-choice supporting, evangelical beauty queen. I'm not being sexist, I'm just illustrating the demographic that they're trying to reach by selecting her. Obviously they didn't take the decision lightly and i doubt they were banking solely on Hilary supporters. Palin isn't being used only to lore women to vote republican, although the GOP is hopeful sisterhood will prevail. Palin was also strategically selected because McCain isn't (well, wasn't...) right-wing enough for the ultra-conservatives and Palin will drive home the message of the Christian-base. As far as the GOP thinking women vote strictly with their vaginas and that Hilary supporters would jump on the McCainmobile because he selected a female, i'm not too too worried. I hope (believe?) that women as a whole are smarter than to fall for that. What i am concerned with is how much further to the right McCain has gone in the last few months and how he may have cemented his position on the far right by selecting Palin. I don't care why they chose her, I do care though that they have both pledged to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade...

And because i can't resist Sarah Haskins, here's her take on Palin:

Do Republicans Need a Course in History & Politics 101?

When i started this blog I promised myself that it wouldn't become an avenue for me to consistently bash Republicans - primarily because most of my family impenitently consider themselves Republican and i don't want to be disowned ;) But sometimes, i really just can't resist.
Two fun and disturbing (but oh-so-unfunny) stories from last week:

1. Bush administration spokesperson, Dana Perino, doesn't know the difference between missiles because she's just a perty lady - and, duh, men know about missiles through osmosis...

Some of the terms I just don’t know, I haven’t grown up knowing. The type of missiles that are out there: patriots and scuds and cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles. And I think that men just by osmosis understand all of these things, and they’re things that I really have to work at — to know the difference between a carrier and a destroyer, and what it means when one of those is being launched to a certain area.

Jezebel covered this well, even included a lesson for Ms. Perino to better understand missiles. With a shopper's guide soon to come (hopefully in pink, with feathers and lace maybe?)

We laugh (and it is certainly more than a bit ridiculous that the Administration's spokesperson is confused about her weapons of mass destruction) but I do get what she's talking about. She probably grew up playing with dolls and make-up while her male peers played "launch the missile." Although i realize this is an exaggeration, i think it definitely speaks to socialization and the damage caused by engendering our children from such a young age.




Apparently she also doesn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis is?

2. Although i'm a bit late on this, it's rather important to include... McCain confuses Shiites (Iran) and Sunnis (al-Qaeda)





I would hope that the Republican presidential nominee (who is currently a senator and as such, has some legislative power), would know the difference between the two. Not to mention that McCain has made his knowledge and experience of the Iraq war a vital part of his campaign.

I can't decide whether this demonstrates lack of knowledge on his part (probably) or even worse, the attitude that "a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist," resulting in only one answer to terrorism: War. (Remember McCain's musical number "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?)

Jed asks, "when John McCain goes to war, would he do it against the right people?"

...Or maybe that's how we ended up fighting a war with Iraq in the first place?

But really though? REALLY?! These people are our elected officials. One is a spokesperson for the current administration and one may be our future president... People, we need to do better than this... we simply NEED TO.

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!"