when the personal isn't political.

i know it's soon to disprove my own title, but this week on bill maher sexism watch (it sure is great to be a lady in election 2008), i can't imagine anything more appropriate.

proceeded by the statement "i don't want to bash hillary too much", maher brought up a section of living history (while also infantilizing the title) to contend with clinton's ad which puts forth the idea that she should be the person in the white house to handle a crisis. the quote from the book is her reaction upon finding out that bill clinton had truly been cheating on her with monica lewinsky, which is as follows:

i could hardly breathe. gulping for air, i started crying and yelling at him, "what do you mean? what are you saying? why did you lie to me?"

maher uses this passage as an illustration of how she handles her biggest crisis. what he uses as comedy is an extremely intimate and personal event between two married people, not an actual worldwide or nationwide crisis which would undoubtedly inspire a much more level-headed and rational reaction. what maher fails to realize, or possibly does realize and just wants to perpetuate, is that his example only further cements the belief held by some in society that women are not fit for the presidency because they are too emotional.

during the show, joe scarborough attempts to shut down this little comedic gag by pointing out that finding out your husband has been unfaithful to you and, say, getting a call about musharraf's assassination are two completely different arenas. while clinton has every right to cry and be enraged by her husband's actions, i cannot fathom that it would be her reaction to, for example, another terrorist attack on the united states. i also doubt that clinton would sit for seven minutes with a copy of my pet goat like certain other leaders.

while maher's montage last week was disturbing, this strikes me as almost more so, because it plays further upon the stereotype of women being too emotional. adam goldberg (another panelist), upon hearing her reaction, agrees with maher's supposition and claims that the bit is valid because musharraf's assassination is 'worse' than finding out that your spouse is cheating on you. my initial reaction to that is to want to slap him in the face, but that's fighting irrationality with irrationality.

what goldberg should consider before making these statements is that there is no conceivable way that he would not have an emotional reaction to such a personal scenario. he may hide it, but unless he has no soul, he would not be able to take that news without reaction. in this case, there is a differentiation between how one would react to their own personal life crisis, and how one would react to a nationwide political crisis. i do not believe in any way shape or form that any of the candidates would react the same way to both. a personal crisis and a political crisis cannot be judged on the same metrics because they are not comparable.

goldberg goes on to say a bunch of other opinionated and ridiculous statements that clinton is "genuinely troubled" and lauds obama with a string of adjectives that could apply to a zillion politicians and therefore, in my opinion, have the weight of air. (historically literate? smart? articulate? he could be describing most of the people i know, it doesn't mean we should all be the president.) goldberg seems to want to deify obama, buying into the idea that he is changing the level of political discourse in a way that clinton and mccain never could. that may have seemed completely true two weeks ago, but recently it has come to light that when it comes down to it, obama is a politician too - one from chicago, no less. no one is infallible.

here is the video of said real time episode:


part of me wonders when this will stop. when will i be able to watch a political show without the stereotypes of women becoming the forefront of "coverage" on that candidate? when will other female (and male) pundits and newscasters really stand up to the sexism that permeates not only the media, but society? when will keith olbermann really just tell chris matthews to shut the fuck up? there is no way to answer any of these questions, but i want answers sooner rather than later. it's gone on too long as it is.

a follow-up: no seriously, we are.

i don't know how this one slipped by me, BUT charlotte allen penned a pathetic op-ed in the washington post about how women are the dumber sex, and today katha politt answered.

A far more important question is this: Why did The Post publish this nonsense? I can't imagine a great newspaper airing comparable trash talk about any other group. "Asians Really Do Just Copy." "No Wonder Africa's Such a Mess: It's Full of Black People!" Misogyny is the last acceptable prejudice, and nowhere more so than in our nation's clueless and overwhelmingly white-male-controlled media.

"mean girls" - we are our own worst enemy.

one of my favorite topics this primary season is the media's denigration of hillary clinton based on her gender - you know, the old stalwart "sexism." for awhile now, my ire over it has centered around chris matthews and various other white male pundits & journalists at msnbc. matthews' statements about clinton only winning her senate seat because bill messed around on her, his cheek pinching, and his general dismissive attitude toward clinton and all women has led to me refusing to watch anything he appears on, including primary coverage.

he was weakly "called out" by keith olbermann during coverage when matthews was seemingly chomping at the bit to reference tina fey's sketch on snl and call clinton a bitch on live nationwide television. you can watch the video and read about it at media matters. ol' tweety just won't quit.

then last week it was bill maher, where his montage of 'the many moods of hillary clinton' was enough for me to taste vomit in my throat, only to be followed by the statement 'ladies, don't send me letters' – basically maher letting all women know that he doesn't want to hear any complaints about blatant sexism. his show is also now peppered with dismissive comments about clinton, but he follows them up with "but i like hillary clinton." it's like having your abusive boyfriend hit you but then make sure to tell you he loves you right after.

up until today, my disturbance from this behavior was limited to older white men who just don't want us to forget that the patriarchy is alive and well, and don't like threats from powerful women. not to be outdone, women still insist on letting the world know that we are not beyond catty name-calling and degrading each other. we have our stereotypes and we're not gonna let 'em go!

samatha power, who has been an extremely vocal opponent of the genocide in darfur and was deeply involved in fighting the genocide in rwanda, called clinton "a monster" during an interview with the new scotsman in london. i don't even know if there's anything i can say to follow that up. oh wait, i can - it's another comment. You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. certainly, i look at a woman who is a tireless worker, tough as nails, a champion of causes for children and women, extremely intelligent and wants health care for all of america at a cost they can afford, and i am definitely thinking 'ergh.'

actually, no i'm not. i would never think that.

i'm thinking "here is someone who works hard and while guided by ego and a desire for control/power like ALL presidential candidates, wants good things to happen for this country and its people and wants to change the way america is currently viewed by the world." i think those are things samantha power probably wants too. i find it extremely unfortunate that an intelligent woman is insulting another intelligent woman by saying she is 'stooping to anything' when i'm pretty sure that calling someone a 'monster' is also stooping to pretty low levels - the levels of a middle school playground.

the other thing that i am disturbed by is that power has seen 'monsters.' she has been to rwanda, been to darfur - the atrocities committed there are monstrous by any standard. to call another woman, one who has her faults but who by and large is nothing compared to a genocidaire, "a monster" is just bad form, period.

if samantha power wants the candidate she advises, and by proxy represents, to be viewed as the candidate for change - the man who will turn this nation around, revolutionize civil rights in a way we have never seen, and put a new face on how politics are conducted in america, perhaps she should watch her own mouth.

missing the generation gap.

this morning, as i do on most mornings, i watched a little washington journal while putting off going to work. not surprisingly, the entire discussion i caught was about yesterday's "super tuesday jr." and its results, discussed between the host and dick polman of the philadelphia inquirer.

while i've been hearing the same junk on WJ for months now, this morning polman discussed the generation gap between clinton and obama supporters. to make a horrible generalization, everyone who holds an aarp card votes for clinton, and everyone who has seen at least 2 episodes of 90210 votes for obama. obviously there are many exceptions to that (myself included), but for the sake of the discussion, that's the deal.

polman went on to talk about how many young people & first time voters have gotten into politics due to obama, and how, if clinton somehow gets the nomination, they will be so disappointed and disillusioned that they may just sit out the general election. this is where my ears pricked up, and i got a little testy.

my biggest problem with "new voters" and people who just come in to politics is that usually they know next to nothing about american government. i'm no scholar, but i've read, watched and participated enough that i'd be willing to go up against an average example among my peers. could i take, say, fareed zakaria or my poli sci professor al tuchfarber from college? no way. but i know enough to inform myself on all candidates, and not to just blindly follow one because of a sudden surge in popularity.

it's like only supporting your sports team when they're winning. i know a thing or two about fair weather fans, because i'm from cleveland, and our sports teams always lose. there are the people who only care when they come out on top, and there are the people who care regardless. i challenge every fair weather voter to care whether you're up or down and not let one setback take away from your involvement.

the spur off of this biggest problem is that if all of those obama supporters decide to just sit out because "their" candidate isn't the nominee, the chances of mccain winning get better and better. (hello nixon victory in 1968!) ideologically, clinton and obama are not so vastly different that the switch from one to the other would be tough to take. the stem of the struggle in that switch is identity politics.

it will not be easy to go from one to the other instantaneously, but in an era of two party disillusionment, first timers & rookies need to know that if they sit this one out, mccain can win. i am not expecting all voters to support any democrat at any cost - but i do feel that for this country to get its act together and begin to undo the past eight years, we need clinton or obama in the white house.

i'm not going to lie - i will not be jumping for joy if obama is named the nominee in denver, but i also know that i would not sulk or complain that i didn't get what i wanted and forfeit my right to vote since i wouldn't be able to vote for my candidate. this behavior goes both ways - if every clinton supporter decides they just can't get behind obama, we are losing a huge part of the democratic base.

every cycle is like a yo-yo, and this one is no different. whoever the democratic nominee is, i will go to work campaigning. i just hope everyone else from my generation will too.