Wendy Davis and Hillary Clinton – Matter Much? – Yes and No

Wendy Davis, Democrat from Texas who is seeking the Governor’s office, apparently has had a few problems in the past. She was the gunner for the pro-abortion lobby, and ensured that Texans had the “right to choose”, yet her past is catching up with her. The Washington Post suggests that although she may have problems with her resume (which is not, when right and left clash in print, the only problems), but she had to run for Governor and lose.. The aforementioned makes no sense at all – in the real world, instead of making excuses for Ms. Davis, ahead of a loss in Texas in 2014, why not vet her first, find a credible female Democrat to run in her stead (surely there is one that hold Progressive tenets and has no .. scandals or misdemeanors or jail time in their past?)

Hillary Clinton is being ballyhooed as the front runner for 2016 – Politico reports that she is cleaning Chris Christies clock in the polls – a veritable shoe in, a done deal. While other news reports suggest that perhaps Benghazi may come back to haunt her – are either a factor?

First Christie, not necessarily the candidate of choice for the Conservative does not have yet to declare, nor has anyone else for that matter, and polls taken only pit Christie against Clinton. The danger there is that the public is led to believe that she is infallible and Christie is the only one running. Secondly, Clinton has run and was, quite clearly, robbed of the nomination in 2008, but that was history – the two major political parties appear to play a game of “the loser get’s the second chance”. In other words, should one come in second, one will come in first the very next opportunity. Never mind that there may be baggage now that was not there in 2008, given her close association tot his administration, and the additional fact that the public is growing sick of the Washington elite.

Yet, depending upon who does run, Clinton may be the best choice – baggage and all. If another female with impeccable credentials, a Governor perhaps, who has held the seat for at the least one full term, would do.

Sadly, the public is weary, both sides of the aisle and their respective media outlets, have hammered the Republican versus Democrat battle to the point where one can’t even stand to read an article, listen to a newscast or even get the energy up to care a whit – which is good news if a candidate is not the darling of either media, or exclusively branded with a major political party. Yes, once again, America needs a shiny new toy, to hold up on a pedestal, but this time, the low information voter may not be so quick to choose, and may want more in the way of leadership than slogans.

Which begs the question for both sides of the aisle and both genders – is there anyone at all, without the baggage or the brand -who would risk the backlash and the cash to take on the nightmare that surely will be the next President’s inheritance?

If a woman does run, regardless of which one, for which race, one would hope that the criticisms of which there will be many would focus on their political acumen, their management skills, rather than their personal lives and/or their wardrobe.

Sequestration – the Day After Deadline - The Sky Has Not Fallen – Yet (Is the warning) – Dem. Controlled Senate failed to pass bill? Government Employees bemoan Loss of Bonuses! The Pain! The Drama!

Sequestration and the drama – more boring that Housework! – Image and Insulting Article from the New York Times: What Housework has to do with Waistlines” - Ladies, grab your aprons! (This article should bother more than half of the population more than the orchestrated chaos of Washington.)

For all the fear and partisan finger pointing taking place the past few months, as the latest in a series of “sky is falling” crises, came to an abrupt end – and the result – the nation yawned. There are those still beating the drum however, the Boston Globe reports: Budget Cuts Long Term Effects Still Unclear, offers the following as to what took place:

Democrats and Republicans did offer alternatives to the cuts in the Senate on Thursday. But neither had the needed 60 votes to break a filibuster. The Democrats’ proposal, replacing the across-the-board cuts with targeted reductions and closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, was defeated 51-49. The GOP’s legislation offered Obama greater flexibility in slashing the budget, but that plan was defeated 38-62, amid concerns among some about giving too much power to the White House over spending.

Understanding that when the words “Republicans in Congress” is used as a rallying cry for all that is wrong in Washington by certain others in Washington, the nation does not connect Congress with the Senate, which is a Democrat controlled body. Apparently, both had offered solutions, and those solutions did not appear to be solid enough to drag over a few Republicans or Democrats to either side, and the timing of the Senate, not the Congress, also appears to be somewhat last minute – considering the “danger” of lost police, teachers, closed daycares, and longer unemployment lines looming.

Meanwhile, BET reports, the President has begun to “back peddle” and soften his tone:

What happened to the shock and devastation that was supposed to ensue right away? Where is the hyperbole and saber-rattling that flooded the airwaves until now? Visions of starving children running the streets and military men and women without ammunition had, until this point, danced in some people's heads as the administration made the case for why Congress needed to act now.

You're likely wondering, "Why the shift in tone? Why is it that the sky is apparently not going to fall after all?"

Conservatives believe that the president's warnings amounted to no more than hyped-up hysterics. But there may be a number of reasons why Obama changed his tune. Perhaps he was concerned that he had overplayed his hand in the hard press to put pressure on Congress. At the risk of appearing to be the boy who cried wolf, the administration cut off criticism at the pass by "clarifying" its message before the pending deadline arrived.

So it appears that the sky will not be falling tomorrow after all, or next week or next month for that matter. And whether we're facing a jump off of a cliff or simply a steady tumble downward, the end result is something that our lawmakers should work to avoid.

The sarcasm in journalism award this week goes to BET.

Next up at the Voice of America, the blame game continues:

.S. President Barack Obama is due to meet at the White House Friday with top Republican and Democratic lawmakers to discuss a last-ditch effort to avoid across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to take effect before the day is over.

The meeting is largely viewed as symbolic, after dueling bills to avoid the cuts were defeated in the Senate Thursday, making $85 billion in automatic spending cuts appear inevitable once the Friday deadline passes.

President Obama has said the effects of the cuts on federal agencies - most notably defense, infrastructure spending, public schools and preschool care - will not be felt immediately, but instead will have what he calls a "tumble downward" effect. That means, the longer the cuts remain in place, the worse the damage they will cause.

Defense employees are expected to be forced to take unpaid time off work, while funding for big infrastructure projects will eventually halt.

States also would feel the effects, with fewer federal dollars coming in.

President Obama is blaming Republicans for the impasse, saying they voted to put the entire burden of deficit reduction on the middle class. Obama and many Democrats want to eliminate certain tax breaks for the wealthy to raise revenue along with spending cuts as a way to reduce the budget deficit.

Darn those Republican’s (and the Democrat Controlled Senate under the watchful eyes of Harry Reid), for not bucking up and saving the nation! – Yet they are meeting today to come up with some “last-ditch-effort” that barely anyone knows or cares about.

Unless one is Bob Woodward, and now that he’s dared to shed some light on the entire subject of an Obama Sequestration Plan gone wrong, his colleagues are beginning to turn on him. (Poltico) of course, if one were Woodward, calling those crying “foul, old man, who’s a liar,” colleges would be a stretch, to say the least – Wish they were Woodward’s’, more like it, but a moot point. (A side note: Lanny Davis, of Clinton White House fame, who is now a pundit on several cable news networks – is backing up the “White House threatened me not to write about..” Woodward claim, noting the Obama administration has done the same to him.)

The entire non-crisis appears to be much ado about nothing, as the deadline passed to “save jobs, babies, and the seas from rising” there appears to be a :”Last ditch effort!!”a day later.

Bets are still on the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to do an about face, and cozy up to tax hikes and no cuts whatsoever (which amounted to a slight increase in already inflated and increased spending levels that, without a budget, are somewhat fluid. Therefore, what’s all the drama about? One knows that the Congress (which holds the nations checkbook) has passed, along with the Senate, band aids from time to time, raising debt ceilings, ad raising spending, adding amendments to bills that have nothing to do with budgets. In other words, it’s all smoke,, mirrors and the never ending campaign trail that is DC, on both sides of the aisle. One might be tempted to blame the President for the phenomena, however, anyone with a pulse should understand – it’s the whole lot of them. Of course, those government employees who won’t be seeing bonuses as a result of this crisis, are clearly upset! (Washington Times). Government employee bonuses? Just let that sink in and attach the word crisis to understand the ridiculous idiots who are running our nation, are doing so on our dime and passing laws that pertain to our health, welfare and of course, any wealth we have left.

Danica Patrick – Making History at Daytona – First Women to pull a Pole position - From the Feminist Perspective

Danica Patrick - a first - image from usa today

From U.S.A. Today: Danica Patrick, became the first woman in the 65 year history of NASCAR racing to pull a pole position for what is considered the premier auto racing event in the U.S. – the Daytona 500 Patrick, is no stranger to firsts for women, in 2005, she finished 4th at the Indianapolis 500, being the first woman in the race, and the first to finish at that high a placement. (Biography.com).

Although this blogger is not a huge fan of NASCAR, or U.S. racing (preferring the Grand Prix with its pomp, circumstance, et.al), the image of a woman leading in any male-centered field, especially since Patrick did not take anything away from her personality as a result of “playing with the boys”, is a rather important for women in general. It was not uncommon in the 1970’s for one to want to work in any position (even something so mundane as sales) only to find that as a woman, one was expected to mimic the boys – in the manner of dress, (grey suit, white press shirt, pumps), to the beverage of choice, (“get rid of the girly drink – have a scotch!”). Therefore, it’s a bit refreshing when one sees a woman, competing at the predominant level in a male centered career, “doing it her way” (to steal part of a phrase from Sinatra).

Just a side: Although in President John F. Kennedy, signed the “Equal Pay Act” in 1963 noting at that time, women earned only .60 cents on a dollar, for work comparable to their male counterparts, (Read JFK's Statement here fifty years forward, women now manage to earn 10 cents more. Therefore, what may seem to some, a trivial event, at a NASCAR (of all things) race, where a woman garners another first, to those who have experienced, and waited and watched for the last fifty years, for improvement, a little satisfaction is in order.

Although a believer that the most qualified political candidate, regardless of gender, should be given the nod by “we the people”, it remains a rather steep climb for any woman to break the glass ceiling, in government and politics in general. Understanding that Sarah Palin (love her or no), was the first woman to be nominated to a V.P. slot on a national ticket since Geraldine Ferraro ran as the V.P. nominee n 1984 – with the same amount of disrespect, speaks volumes. It was not the win or the loss (as those are determined by the front-runner and the mood of the nation); it was the way in which both women were measured – 30 years apart. Moreover, as Hillary Clinton was vying for the top slot in 2008 – qualified, and competent, (although one may or may not agree with her political ideology), what the general public heard was “pantsuits”, hair, etc.” rather than the fact that she had solid ideas as to health care, voted on a bi-partisan manner –and was every inch a suitable candidate. (She was the most qualified of the bunch, in this opinion.) – Although strides have been made, since the 1920’s (The first decade a woman could cast a vote!), there is still much to be done. (Obviously, Equal Pay Acts, and the newly re-minted Obama Administration version) did and most likely will do little more than perhaps, another 10% in pay equity and opportunities.

In looking at candidates, what political strategists look to is the candidate that will appeal to “women” - in a recent scramble to find appropriate candidates for a MA special election, one such individual suggested that Ben Affleck would make a perfect Senate candidate – his appeal to “woman” being one of the main reasons. Apparently, in the male mind, a vote for a pretty face would be a trump card for women. No offense to Mr. Affleck, who is passionate about politics, and as a citizen, more likely just as capable if not more so than those now in D.C. – it was the though process behind the choice, that rankles. Somewhat sadly, it is true, that for some the trees are obscured by the forest, which may go a long way towards explaining the state of the Union as it stands. It is not that a woman should be chosen based solely on the fact that she may be the only alternative to a male, but on competence. Whether that woman is running for the Presidency, or a Congressional Seat, or the same position in the accounting department of what-ever firm, the measure should be competency, and if competent, she should be hired, at the same salary as her male counterpart.

Equal Paycheck Act, S3772 – Women’s Rights to Pay Equity Continue to Lag Behind Male Counterparts Due to Legislative Incompetence As If By Design

John F Kennedy Signs Equal Pay Act, yet another instance of show over substance when it comes to actual parity

On November 17th, the Senate voted against proceeding with S3772, the Paycheck Fairness Act, along almost straight party lines. The Act would allegedly mandate equal pay for women, who still lag behind their male counterparts earning only .77 cents for every dollar. Those arguing against the passage of this particular bill, including the Boston Globe’s Editorial Board, noted the language of the Bill was flawed, even though there is a need to remedy a pay gap. The bill would encourage lawsuits against all employers, which, in this economy, was considered an undue burden and “job killer”.

It is also a perfect example of how the status quo is maintained by politico’s, both men and women, in order for equal pay for equal work to remain out of reach, while at the same time allowing these politicians to appear to support women’s rights. “Throw a Dog a Bone” is an appropriate idiom to what took place in the Senate, during the Lame Duck session; with Democrats now crying foul due to Republicans not supporting this particular act. This set's up “women’s groups” to rally for the cause along party lines, and with 2012 on the horizon, the Democrats need every trick in the book to keep up appearances – so do the Republicans.

Those voting against the bill (roll call below), included a Democrat or two, and one can bet the House (or the Senate in this case) the Act had less to do with women actually achieving pay parity, than with the growth of the Federal government and ridiculous costly programs.

The Act can be read in its entirety here in PDF format: with particularly glaring segments of the Bill, by which any individual, regardless of gender, should have taken exception.

For example the language states: “Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors.” Therefore, the Legislature admits that the government itself is guilty of gender discrimination, however, the language of the Bill then sets up an exclusion from compliance for the Government under the “Enhanced Enforcement” section.

In addition, there are provisions to set up additional governmental agencies to oversee investigation of complaints and training of women. Who would be responsible for this training and what would it include. Those who would qualify for funding include government agencies and community organizations. In order for those “entities” to be eligible for funds, they must:

“Carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male employees."

Seriously, a direct quote from the bill (see PDF), that would teach women (and girls) negotiation skills in order to receive higher wages is the basis of this Act.

Frankly, the authors of the final piece of legislation (keep in mind, a Bill takes many forms from the original version in the House, to its final form in the Senate), should be summarily chastised for doing nothing for equal pay, rather, creating a nonsensical document that was doomed from the onset for one reason only – enslavement of a voting bloc.

Strong word, but this appears appropriate as the language of the Bill’s final version may have read somewhat differently – simply:

Women shall be paid wages equal to their male counterparts for performing the exact same job descriptions, in the public and in the private sector. Those private or public organizations that do not strictly comply will be a) fined, and b) forced to compensate the aggrieved employee back wages equal to the difference in wages paid to her male counterpart, for the time period beginning when the pay disparity began. Since wages are reported, along with job functions to the Internal Revenue Service, monitoring of these wages will be simplified. As all returns are computerized, software would be able to check firms and job descriptions against gender and wages. If an employee had a suspicion that she was not earning as much as her male counterpart a simple call to the IRS would either support or dismiss a case.

No need to hire a lawyer, no need to set up investigative arms (the IRS is already in place watching over wages and running audits), no need to teach negotiating skills or to fund community organizations to do the same.

Instead, mandate that women doing the same job as a male be paid the same, use the current government agencies that have the capability to monitor salaries in place as “watchdogs”, and supply a handy toll-free number for complaints. How many employers, understanding that an Act such as the aforementioned, which would monitor taxes and payroll would take the chance of facing fines, and not pony up the .33 per hour in order to comply?

In the meantime, women must wait for equality where equality is already mandated, simply because politicians, including women, would rather play politics with their lives, while attempting to enrich, not the victim,(who will surely vote for the party that at least "tried" to aid women - i.e. enslavement) but lawyers and community organizers.

That is the question that should be asked of each and every member of the Senate who will be in the 112th Congess, some of which voted on S3772:


Roll Call:

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---58
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 1
Murkowski (R-AK)

Struggling Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Campaigns on Abortion – Is it Truly a Social Conscious or a Sure-Fire Fundraiser that Motivates?

Barbara Boxer Uses Abortion Issue in Desperation - image Politico

FromPolitico: Barbara Boxer, in a rally at a Hollywood, CA hotel, claimed that her opponent, Republican Carly Fiorina, “would become a sure Senate vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” Apparently, Boxer is unaware that neither Chamber of the House, Senate or Congress, has the right to overturn any Supreme Court decision. The only “danger” to a “woman’s right to choose” would be the people’s hiring of a President, who would then have the right to appoint Supreme Court justices, which are first vetted and approved by the Senate. The abortion football, like the “gay marriage” football, have become nothing more or less than political cards, played to the public and used with no real intent or power, for that matter, of moving the debate forward or solving any issue. When someone declares their personal belief in life or abortion, one is merely stating an opinion and unless than someone is sitting on the highest court in the land, it is a moot point.

Therefore, Boxer’s logic (and any other politician who tries this tactic) follows that the voters in California, or elsewhere where that tired card is played, feel that “protecting the rights of the unborn” or “fighting for a woman’s right to choose”, at this point in the game, should trump the fact that there is high unemployment, and major entitlement programs upon which she (and her like-minded peers), voted upon in order to suck the life out of our nation. Social issues come into play when the economy is not in “tatters”, and when all is “rosy”. What Boxer, and other politician’s in her position (danger of losing a job, and joining the 9.6% of the nation (low estimate by some economists) who are no longer employed) are left with, after either knowingly, or worse going to incompetence, unknowingly took part in the legislation that caused this mess, are the “scare tactics of social issues”. Regardless of Fiorina’s personal beliefs, or O’Donnel’s, or Witman’s, or Pelosi’s, or Murry’s, or any one of the women running who are either pro-life or pro-abortion, the women (or men) who count are sitting on the Supreme Court.

It is, as of the present time, a women’s right to choose whether or not to end the life of a child in utero, however, those who might matter politically are at the State level, not the Federal level, and would move legislation forward that would either limit or increases access to abortion, and those laws are then challenged – in the courts. So, in reality the politician’s one must be most concerned with, specifically on the issue of abortion, are those who are applying for jobs as State Representatives and State Senators and Governors who would sign into law a bill on the subject – however, no state can trump the Supreme Court. No one, in any position in a State or Federal office, now, or in the foreseeable future, has the ability to overturn anything.

It is the duping of those who have no clue when it comes to civics, that “career” politicians’ hope to prey upon. It is the collective body politic, that would stand to move an issue one way or the other, and the time it takes to do so is obviously lengthy. Roe vs. Wade was decided upon in in 1973 and to date, no one politician or individual has brought a successful appeal forward to the only body upon which the issue is adjudicated. It is especially shameless when a woman in the political arena, either pro-or anti abortion, uses this issue to campaign, without specifically acknowledging the steps necessary to move it forward, and either their or their oponnents very minor role in the process, they are not feminists, they are merely taking advantage of other women.

The Democrats, who are clearly in danger of losing their majority, cannot “man up” (how sexist) and campaign on their records – records which the voting public who are motivated by the economy are clearly aware. Wild claims, made in front of clueless celebrities, with the backing of the nation’s foremost lobby on abortion (N.A.R.A.L.) smack of desperation and an entreaty for hard cash – which Boxer will need to clear her debts after Nov. 2nd.

Progressive Strategy – Demean Women in Politics to Distract from the Issues

One understands that politics are dirty, and that when one enters the political arena, be it a male or a female, they are subjecting themselves and often their family, to the proverbial microscope of the press. No matter how frivolous a charge or alleged “scandal” might be, and no matter the position sought, a “leak” of the most ridiculous sorts, suddenly becomes “national news”. That said, the disparity between the opposition attacks against women, regardless of party, is fairly prominent, and especially true this past week as the nation has less than 42 days to determine the shape of the 112th Congress, and incidentally immediately following, the candidates for the Presidential primaries for 2012.

One which stands out more than most is the embattled “Tea Party” Candidate Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware. O’Donnell: If one Googles' O’Donnell is the search engines News feature, they will find thousands of articles regarding a videotape of Ms. O’Donnell as a teen, making a silly comment about being involved with Wicca (witchcraft). Of course, Mr. Maher, the HBO talk show host, who if one reviews his past videos will find remarks made by the host that would elevate Ms. O’Donnell sainthood.

For example the video below shows a younger Maher, comparing dogs to “retarded children”. This is the same man who is taken seriously when dismissing a Senate candidate for a comment made while a teen. That said, the media jumped on this nonsense and moved it to the spotlight, which certainly distracts from the issues at hand that affect voters in Delaware. Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent on the other hand, is an avowed Marxist and believes in increasing the size of the U.S. government Of course, nothing to concern Delaware voters about Mr. Coons, also dubbed Harry Reid’s Pet must, according to press logic, be the better candidate.



Aside from the ridiculous, serious charges have been leveled against Ms. O’Donnell, specifically regarding a lean placed upon her by the IRS, which is running in an ad throughout Delaware, what the ad fails to mention (given that it is a DNC ad), Ms. O’Donnell received an apology from the IRS for their mistake. In fact, for every spurious accusations against the woman, she has asked and answered with full documentation (the actual documents) on her website here at Chrstine2010.com. Meanwhile, nothing is being asked and answered by either candidate about issues. But, as a woman, the “witch” tag is sticking and the word “teen” has made its début.

Although one could argue it is partisan politics (dirty, agreed), it is an attack on O’Donnell personally and as a woman. (Bill Maher remarks in his video with a then high school age O’Donnell “what’s with the 90’s hair?”.

Speaking of hairstyles: Hillary Clinton, the woman who should have been President (opinion with a basis in fact (i.e. popular vote in primary dismissed by super-delegates in favor of the brilliant Obama who has failed to show his brilliance) is to this day, under the fashion microscope, this time, her faux pax is a hairstyle. How silly. Yet, in some ways, not at all, as it is the beginning of firing “salvos” should the former New York Senator decide to run against this particular sitting president as rumors suggest. This article by the New York Daily News, goes into detail on Clinton’s “new hairdo” for a UN meeting. Apparently, Clinton had worn a banana clip of sorts, looking as if she had more to worry about, and chose a “banana clip” to get the hair up and away from her face. Herein lies the crux – perhaps Ms. Clinton’s hairstyle is big news to those who hit the salon on a daily basis, but for those of us who work for a living, it looks familiar, and comfortable, and lastly “normal”. The end result, in trying to dismiss Clinton via hair, or what she wore on a particular day, etc., is that she becomes more human to the rest of nation that might find themselves in that same pantsuit situation.

One can, however, bet the house that should John Kerry assume the role as Secretary of State, (rumored to be replacing Clinton as she seeks a way out), then the press will undoubtedly not fixate on the type of tie he wore on a particular day, or the cut of a suit.

Finally, Sarah Palin, who has been criticized on wardrobe, and more, continues to be a target, as she has taken a prominent place in politics and is possibly one of the 2012 candidates for President. One can anticipate the attacks on Palin to be "ramped u a bit" and, should Clinton join her from the opposite side of the aisle, attacks on her as well, not on the issues but on what both women wore, their makeup, their hairstyles, ad nauseum.

This is nothing new in the political arena, when women attempt to cross over into a predominately male “club”. The first woman to break the political glass ceiling (Vice President, not President), Geraldine Ferraro, was also treated with the same hair brush, discussions regarding her were national news.

That was in 1984. A mere 26 years ago, which is current in the scheme of women in politics.

Two stunning Women and politics facts:
1920 - Given the right to vote – last “group” to be given that right.
Ongoing - Categorized as a minority (seriously women and minorities)

Observations:

Are considered to have broken the glass ceiling by merely being a, candidate

Progressives for all their “solidarity” are as sexist as a men’s only club.

However, there are more women candidates for state and federal offices in 2010 than in previous years, specifically in the GOP. Philosophically, (Feminism) and legally (EEO) regardless of party or politics, women should be treated no differently than their male counterparts when applying for the same position, be it in the private sector or the public sector. It is far past time, for there to be two qualified candidates for the nations highest office, and should those candidates be women , then all the better. As the press would be forced to speak on issues, rather than what dress one wore, or what hairstyle the other chose for a particular meeting.

2012 – The Year of the Woman – Tales of Pleading and Polls

The Future of the United States Presidency - 2012 - image: lavendarcastle.com

Historically, women in the United States have, for the most part, moved to the front of the political class more slowly than their male counterparts. Yes, women hold lofty positions – the office of Secretary of State held by Condoleezza Rice during the Bush administration and now by Hillary Clinton under the Obama brand and Nancy Pelosi, who has risen through the ranks to become the first female Speaker of the House. However, historical landmarks in 2008 were specific to women – Hillary Clinton being the first to run for President under the Democrat Party brand, and Sarah Palin, the first female Vice Presidential nominee under the Republican Party Brand and only the second woman to have been nominated for that position in this nation’s history. The first, Geraldine Ferraro, nominated by the Democrat Party in 1984, to run with Walter Mondale – all three, due a variety of circumstances, yet, while being applauded as having broken through the “glass ceiling”, Ferraro, Clinton and Palin all lost their respective bids. Clinton was shoved out, so to speak, having cornered the popular vote, the powers within the Democrat Party simply pushed Obama forward on the wings of the so-called “super delegates”, denying the nation the opportunity to vote for the only moderate left standing in the 2008 contests. Both Ferraro and Palin were tied to weak candidates, who would have been all but invisible had they chosen male running mates.

It is not that women haven’t held critical positions in both the public and private sector for the past thirty some-odd years, so why the blatant prejudice against women who run for the highest office?

Sexism is too tame a term (although appropriate in some instances) to use in the cases of the aforementioned – prejudice however, is not. The press, at every opportunity, took the option of critiquing wardrobe rather than accomplishments, and a simple “gaffe” produced innumerable headlines, days of talking heads and pundits analyzing the now “diminished” changes of whichever of these three women named, and all the while, ignoring fashion faux pas and horrific gaffes made by their male contemporaries (See Joe Biden).

As a result of the choice in 2008 between what was left-over, the United State elected the stronger (on paper – newspaper) candidate and with what result?

Unemployment is holding steady at close to 10%, (not to mention the underemployed and those who have stopped seeking employment), BP and the administration took 87 days to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that has done untold damage to the environment and tourism, the Congress and President in concert, has pushed through more unpopular legislation, faster than any other in history. Foreign policy is a disaster, as the United States is, once again, considered a “paper tiger”, and Obama is openly chastised by political leaders from Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

The pure hype surrounding the man’s candidacy, coupled with a lack of experience, and a penchant for ideology, has produced one of the worst presidencies in history – bar none. One must keep in mind that historians, are basically an ideologically driven bunch – writing a presidential biography is part science (backed up by historical data: documents, etc.) and the viewpoint of the author. As academics are primarily politically Progressive – it is no wonder there is often a disconnect between the reality of a Presidents performance as voted by the people and whichever Presidential Historian is assigned to an administration. Fortunately, history, (which has a habit of repeating itself) as a science, can be modified and updated by any historian who might be a competent researcher and who is able to discern fact from ideology dispassionately.

What of women? Historically women have made solid leaders, regardless of one’s political leanings, there is no denying the accomplishments of the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, Israel’s, Golda Meir, (most recent) to Elizabeth I, Catherine of Russia and Isabella of Spain. Women, who rule over vast nations and territories, do no worse and often better than their male predecessors and successors.

History, as previously noted, does repeat, and the United States may see yet another historical political accomplishment in 2012 for women. As the Obama brand weakens daily, and Congressional Democrats find their chances greatly diminished, certain moderate members of the party have begun to seek alternatives, and only one competent alternative comes to the forefront – Hillary Clinton. Immediately following the January 21st Inauguration of Barak Obama, Clinton supporters had begun to hope for a run in 2012. Now, just shy of two years into his administration, the calls for Clinton to run in 2012 are becoming more frequent, and moving from the blogs to the Washington Post. An article by Pete DuPont in the Wall Street Journal on July 15th makes the case for a Clinton Presidency in 2012. Although an “op-ed” and the opinion of Mr. DuPont, should one search Hillary Clinton 2012 on Google, there are 1,687,000 results, a number than has grown over the past few months.

One must understand that traditional Democrats are not particularly enthralled with the Progressive Democrats who have taken leadership positions within their party – a schism where the majority will, if given the chance, do what should have been done in 2008 and nominate Clinton as their 2012 Presidential Candidate.

Should this occur, who would Ms. Clinton face in opposition? With the Democrat Brand as badly or if not more badly damaged now than the Republican brand in 2006-2008, the Republican’s who may run at the White House, are anyone’s guess.

That said guesswork has produced a field of candidates that include: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and yes, Sarah Palin. In a recent poll by Democrat Leaning Public Policy Polling, matching possible 2012 GOP candidates against Barak Obama results produced regarding two of the aforementioned, prove most interesting. The poll data (here) gives former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee a 2 point lead over the President, 47 to 45%, and polling higher among women (49% to 42%) than the President. Obama trails both Romney and Gingrich by 1 point (to date). That said, the match up of Palin and Obama is what is of most interest – although Palin places below her male GOP counterparts, at dead even with Obama (46%/46%), she is also now scoring higher with women (47% to 44%) than the President. Further, Public Policy Polling refers to Palin’s score as ”An Amazing Fact” because in March of this year she was at 35% to Obama’s 55% in a 2012 match up. Additionally, it appears that even though her unfavorability actually rose in the latest poll, she is still besting the current Pennsylvania Avenue resident.

What this tells us – The United States is preparing to look at strong women to lead. Although alleged to be polar opposites, one might find the two women closer on issues of substance and policy than either major political party would be comfortable with. Both are strong on defense, tough of foreign policy and have backgrounds to suggest fiscal responsibility – the criteria which voters in this election will seek. How credible is a Clinton – Palin match-up in 2012? Although early in the game, both women have enough political capital to push through the ranks to the top of their tickets. The outcome would depend a great deal on how badly the Democrat brand has been damaged, and if Clinton can pull away from the administration in time to convince the voters she does not prescribe to the Progressive ideology that many see as having destroyed our nation on so many levels. Palin, on her part, must get past the media, who were concerned about her “star-power” from the moment she accepted the GOP nomination in 2008 and began to draw larger crowds than Obama. Although ratings and circulation have fallen dramatically for Palins' detractors, it would be naive to believe that, regardless of who Palin would face as a competitor, the media would be prepared to eviscerate her. The saving grace should the match up be two women, pantsuits and updo’s would be off the table, and reporting would be forced to turn to substantive issues and differences between two highly qualified women. The result, voters would have a chance to choose between two candidates, knowing that the outcome would be favorable for the nation, regardless of who won the presidency.

Shelly Mandel, NOW CA - Endorses: Palin

Shelly Mandel, the head of the LA Chapter of NOW has endorsed Sarah Palin and John McCain. Mandel called Palin and Feminist as well as a supporter of women's rights (Something every Conservative Feminist would know)at a recent CA rally for McCain. There is reaction to this here: Democratic Underground and Here and IUSBVISION.

It is about time, that NOW members broke with NAREL and worked on feminist issues, instead of party issues. Shelly Mandel has it right, and perhaps her courageous move (she will take plenty of heat as shown by the KOS), will encourage more feminists to join the the ranks and actually elect a woman to the White House.

Video: Now Chief Endorses Palin

Mike Huckabee joins Cindy McCain on Trip to Rwanda, Michelle Obama travels to Access Hollywood

The AP has reported that Cindy McCain, wife of John McCain, and Mike Huckabee will join a bi-partisan group traveling to Rwanda this week. The group is looking at how U.S. aid to the region has helped improve conditions and what more can be done to fight global poverty. Former Democrat Senator Tom Daschle and Bill Frist, Republican, from Tennessee, are leading the delegation for ONE campaign, an organization that educates political leaders on the issues relating to the worlds poor. Cindy McCain has long been an advocate for the poor, founding AMVT in 1988, and working with organizations such as CARE, Operation Smile and HALO. (Baltimore Sun) She also traveled to Kosovo (April), and Vietnam , giving the American voters insight into what she might bring to the White House as well as the nation. Mike Huckabee, who has traveled extensively on similar trips, is a natural to accompany McCain.

The McCains and the Huckabees

Michelle Obama

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama has been traveling around the country in support of her husband, making a stop at Access Hollywood. The media has reported endlessly on Michele Obama’s exploits, no matter how trivial and unimportant they may be. In partisan fashion, and in an age where feminism is in peril (exhibit A: Hillary Clinton), the most frivolous receive the most press, while the most qualified and most serious are denigrated to page 32, if given any press at all.

The question then arises: “Where are the strong women who represent our country and who would best be suited to address the needs of women?” Two immediately come to mind: one is gritting her teeth and moving forward to lend a hand to an opponent who insured that his wife receive a “make-over” in order to appeal to those pesky independent voters, the other is on her way to Rwanda.

Michele Obama "refined"

Hillary Clinton – A Unified Front

Yesterday in Unity, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton joined Barrack Obama onstage in an attempt to unify the Democrat Party and encourage her supporters to vote for Obama in the fall. There is a definite difference between the two - Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat, one who is admired by the blue-collar working class Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Clinton in Key States and women – women who have lived through discrimination and understand that this race was hard fought by a candidate that faced sexism at every step of the campaign trail, especially from the media and members within her own party who felt that the country might not yet be ready for a woman. Barrack Obama on the other hand is a Progressive. This is a critical difference in political ideology – Hillary Clinton could never be accused of being anything less than a Patriot, while a Progressive is more inclined to have a world view, one that includes governments that are socialist in nature. Progressive, in political ideology, does not refer to Progress, rather, it refers to the Progressive Movement, one which many are lead to believe to be “dead” in this country, however, it is most assuredly alive – in our universities and in our media. Progressives admire individuals like Marx and Lenin and believe there is a distinct difference between the Elites (those who would run the country) and the Masses (those who would work for the country). There simply is no Middle Class in Progressive ideology. Many pundits, on both the right and the left, have called into question, the sincerity of Hillary Clinton’s speech. She is a member of the Democrat Party, and therefore, will ally herself with the party speak, that said, she must certainly be aware of the growing power and the absolute danger of the Progressive Party, one which has invaded the Democrat party over the past thirty years, simply because many understood that the country was not about to vote for a Socialist Agenda. Now, with the help of the media, and individuals with deep pockets such as George Sorros, the Progressive Party standard-bearer, Barack Obama is on the road to the White House.





Text from Hillary Clinton Email to Supporters: Subject line: “Unity”


“On February 8, in Unity, New Hampshire, 107 people voted for me, and 107 people voted for Senator Barack Obama.

Today, Barack and I were in Unity to celebrate a unified Democratic Party focused on electing him the next president. I was proud to stand with him today, and I will do whatever I can to help his campaign between now and November.

Senator McCain and the Republicans may have hoped that we wouldn't join forces like this. They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got.

But I've got news for them: We are one party; we are one America; and we are not going to rest until we take back our country and put it once again on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress in the 21st century.”

The question remains, will Clinton backers buy the party line, or send a clear message that it is time for the Democrat party to be taken back to its roots; and not become a Progressive party, one that is based on the failed ideology of communism. One can look to her speech and her letter to supporters – speaking of the party and politely enjoining her supporters to vote for Obama, but overall, the message is clear – 2012.

Michelle Obama – Makeover Madness

The New York Times is introducing the New, improved Michelle Obama (from the Gawker, NY) today. Apparently, women are subject to makeovers, especially when their husbands are in a spotlight position, specifically when that position is within the ranks of the Democrat party. The makeover should come as no surprise. Hillary Clinton’s campaign coverage focused not on her policy, rather what she wore, how she spoke, her makeup, her hair style, ad nausea. The question is: how long are women going to allow themselves to be made over in order to complement a man? With no sympathy from this particular quarter for Ms. Obama, it still rankles that as a woman, she is expected to toe the line, not be herself, but be a version of a woman that completes some absurd notion of feminism written by a party that is also supposed to be for women. The concept that the Democrats are friendly towards the gender is patently absurd. With only one issue on the platform that deals with women at all, it is amazing that the party still maintains a large percentage of women within its ranks. These ladies need to understand that pro-choice can have another meaning, and that is a choice to take their business elsewhere and vote against a party that promotes re-defining women to fit a particular mold.

Hillary Clinton Fox Interview Part II

photo from Virginia Federalist

Hillary Clinton continued her interview with Fox News, Bill O’Reilly last night. Her take on foreign policy, vis a vis Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, the issue of water boarding and torture in general and the issue of illegal immigration were moderate, not too left, not too right and again, consistent with her voting record in the Senate. Once again, she stood her ground and came across as sincere, knowledgeable and, most importantly, tough on issues. (Granted, some might argue not tough enough). She did make a convincing case for all three issues.

Fox News Video

It now comes down to the following: as voters, and the public in general, have to make a decision that will affect the lives of middle America more than any other segment of the population this November, which candidate from either party would make one most comfortable leading the nation forward. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, rather, experience, policy and a persona that would lend to the credibility of the nation overall. There appear, as of this moment, to be two that stand out - Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. In conversations, both allow for some level of comfort, as both are similar in their previous voting patterns. The lack of experience, and the recent remarks regarding Middle America that Barrack Obama has displayed, render that candidate unacceptable to moderates and conservatives on any level.

Of course, the obligatory race and gender discussions followed the interview. O’Reilly was guilty of noting that he treated a woman differently than a man, during the interview process, which, from this perspective is one of the most appalling remarks that could have been made. That and a discussion on the Senators wardrobe, made this conservative feminist balk. All network news programs, both cable and mainstream, have been guilty of this nonsense. Not one anchor, male or female, has commented on the other two male candidate’s wardrobes. Why take away from a brilliant interview (and it was), with stupid fluff questions? Good question.

Now sitting firmly on the fence, McCain interviews next Thursday evening. It is hoped that he will be honest and forthcoming about his stance on the issues, and not play to the “base”. It is where McCain can make the case for his candidacy.

Although certainly an underdog by press standard, Hillary Clinton’s rise in the polls over the past week, indicate that “it’s not over, till it’s over”. She’s within the margin of error in North Carolina and leading in Indiana. It is my hope that she will be successful in both states and go on to secure the nomination of her party. This will allow the American people a chance to be led by one of two moderates, not an ideologue with zip for experience. Just an aside, she appeared more Regeanlike in this interview segment, than any Republican candidate, with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who remains the only true conservative to have run in the race.

What made Mike special is his ability to reach out to both parties, despite the constant drumbeat from the media that he was basically a one-dimensional candidate, stressing the fact that he was a pastor and failing to mention that his true calling was politics and he had successfully led the state of Arkansas into the 21st century. The right wing turned its efforts to downgrading Mike Huckabee, simply because he could and would work with both parties, and of course, he may not have been “elite” enough by the core group standards. His endorsement of McCain came as no surprise, and as Mike Huckabee is generally known for his character, one can assume that McCain is a man of integrity, regardless of the fact that he is less conservative on issues that are at the heart and soul of the base.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain – it would be a very close race, granted, but again, an opportunity for the country to be led by a more moderate and experienced president.

A Case for Re-thinking the Candidacy of Hillary Clinton

Photo credit: AlJezeera (Arabic version) Title: The Iron Lady

Although a tedious and somewhat perplexing task, (translation software cannot, of course, offer a literal word by word translation) a trip to the Arabic
AlJezzera News site allows a glimpse into the views of another culture in regards to the U.S. Presidential candidates. One thing is certain; the Al Jezeera Islamic viewpoint is one that decisively favors one candidate over another.

On Hillary Clinton (keep in mind translation software in use): “hylaary] Clinton. Iron lady the palace” "Important questions hesitates a lot in stubborn mass mediums American and the internationalism her coverage for news of campaign the senator [hylaary] Clinton is sovereign the White House previous and Senate bit current [waalsaae'yt] for the democratic winning in candidacy her party in elections the American presidency (November/November 2008) in confrontation of group from males of the party [aal'ashdaa'] advances them the senator is faithful your ['awbaamaa] having [aalkaaryzmaa] and the natural power on the interview [aalmstrsl] who [yxlb] the minds, and the previous senator John Edwards who describes him the some “in democratic children of the party golden” Lama be distinguished in him from beauty in the features makes him similar in boys the American cinema [baal'i][aaft] to his southern intelligence his atheism and accent and his concentration on cases [aaldaaxl] American.”

Apparently the Arabic News Services understands that, Hillary, the Iron Lady, Clinton (depicted as one to be feared), has been confronted by the males in her party who are advancing her opponent, the faithful Obama, who has the natural power of the interview, and the “beauty of a movie star” and overall intelligence.

Ladies, stand up and take notice. One might note that this is the same news service that is a direct conduit for the ranting and ravings of one “Osama Ben Laden” and company, their view of the west is one of distaste – they hope for an eventual conquest and conversion of the corrupt United States and in that conversion, women would be treated abominably. Obviously, a hope is only a hope, but that said, a candidate who is feared by those who would see our country destroyed, is a candidate who may be more desirable than one who is lauded by our enemies or, in McCain’s case, largely ignored.

Although, on a personal level, I disagree with Hillary Clinton’s stand on multiple social issues, I am also well-aware that a “mother of our country” might be the ticket as far as security and national safety are concerned. I have no doubt that in a scenario where our country was threatened and Clinton were in a position to take charge, she would be decisive, she would indeed bring fear to those who would do us harm.

In discussions over why I would choose Clinton over my own party candidate or Obama, male associates accuse me first of choosing her because “she is a woman” – they could not be more in error. It is because I feel she would be the one that would keep us safe. It is because I am one of those voters who is acutely conscious of the conscious threat of terrorism.

Should Mrs. Clinton moderate her position on the current tax code, abortion, marriage and immigration to a more conservative stance, she would be the ultimate candidate. To be fair, all candidates lack true conservative credentials. Obama is the most progressive, McCain has voted consistently across the aisle (which may or may not be a good thing), considered switching party alliance not very long ago, and supports embryonic steam cell research. One thing is certain, women, as Democrats, share the same concerns for the safety of our nation as those that are conservative. It is with a great deal of hope that Mrs. Clinton is given a chance to continue and complete her quest for the Democratic nomination and give Americans, as a whole, a choice between two candidates who have the nations security in mind.

Hillary Clinton’s Schedule Released – To Wit – Big Deal

Under pressure from the media, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has released her White House calendar from the time she spent there as First Lady. The dates that are of most interest, according to an article by Brian Ross of ABC, among other outlets, are those in 2000 that coincide with visits between Monica Lewinsky and then President Bill Clinton. What is of import? Mrs. Clinton’s presence in the same, huge abode, while these visits occurred. Are there no depths to which the press will sink? Apparently not. The accompanying graphics - a photograph of Hillary Clinton, one of Monica Lewnsky and one of the “blue dress”, headline the article and are as malicious as its contents. What boggles the mind further is the insistence by ABC “News” that Brian Ross is pat of its Investigative Unit. Have they no shame? When will the news organizations in this country begin to cover this election cycle with articles that outline difference in policy between the candidates? There seems to be no end to the articles written in favor of (or seriously about) Obama or McCain - outlining how presidential one looks, or how the other has visited a place of import. Granted, Obama has had some negative coverage over his association with a racist Pastor, that for all purposes is not particularly relevant given the Bill of Rights that are so often referred to by this same press. Overall, the coverage given to these two candidates has been valid. Surely, Hillary Clinton has made important visits, given speeches and has policy differences that could be reported upon and analyzed; yet, the press chooses to focus on her role as a wife, during a time when her husband was having an affair? When will they lay off on commenting about her looks, her dress, her hairstyle, her husband (reminder to the press, he’s not running) and focus instead on the facts? It has becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between ABC News and the Globe, Sun or National Enquirer.

As a conservative feminist, I feel that Mrs. Clinton does not deserve this type of “good old boy” treatment from the press, rather, all things being equal (who am I kidding), I long for articles that outline her policies, perhaps her voting record while in the Senate, and possibly what experience she might have gained as First Lady (rather than the drivel reported by ABC). Although, as a conservative I might not agree with 80% of Mrs. Clinton’s politics; when reviewing the garbage the media dishes up, I find myself identifying with this candidate on a personal level. This article, among others, is possibly the worst expression of gender bias I have personally witnessed in my lifetime. Will it never end?