Santorum to Women: Don't You Worry Your Pretty Little Heads about Birth Control

Rick Santorum is a wanker. A Tool. An Asshat. A very, very dangerous person living in a time warp. A sanctimonious right-wing nut job who gives Republicans a bad name, and Democrats a win in November. GO RICK!



The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Unmarried Women Flocking to Obama: Gee, I Wonder Why?

A Republican/Libertarian friend told me this week that we progressives need to get back on message and talk about jobs and the economy. I told him that HIS troops are the ones that need to be back on that message. As for me, I'm quite happy to talk about birth control (and the insanity of the GOP's quest to take it away from women) from now until November. This shit is working for me and my peeps, thanks. And here's why --

Democracy Corps has just published an important polling memo that gets right to the heart of why the birth control battle could matter so much in this year’s elections.

The firm’s poll finds that one of the most important factors powering Obama’s gains against likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney has been the president’s improving numbers among unmarried women -- a critical part of the present and future Democratic coalition.

Among this group, Obama now leads Romney by 65-30 -- and there’s been a net, a whopping 18-point swing towards the President among them in the past month. Color me unsurprised.



After unmarried women dropped off for Dems in 2010 and were slow to return to the Dem fold in 2011, Obama is now approaching the 70 percent he won among them in 2008. If Dems play this right, it could encourage the perception that the GOP is backward-looking and lost in a social-issues wilderness, perhaps hastening the already widening gender gap that will be so crucial to the outcome this fall.


The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Watch Teen's Stirring Speech About His Two Moms, Delivered Before Anti-Gay Iowa House

This is fucking brilliant. It's all I can say. Watch on.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Young Americans Learn That Trying To Find Work Is Pointless

While the nation has experienced some job creation during the rebound (and I use that term lightly), the rebound so far, however small, hasn't even started for the young.

That's because the new jobs in today's market aren't open to younger workers, according to a study called "Unemployment Among Young Workers" by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee:

"Employers added over half a million jobs in the last four months, yet the unemployment rate for young workers reached a record 19.6 percent in April 2010, the highest level for this age group since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking unemployment in 1947... The youngest workers (16 to 17 years) experience the highest rates of unemployment. The unemployment rate for 16 to 17 year olds was 29 percent in April."

The chart below shows how the unemployment rate for America's youngest workers (in red) continues to get worse, even while other age groups' unemployment rates have plateaued or slightly declined (in blue or green).

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-unemployment-by-age-young-americans-2010-7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CS_COTD_070710#ixzz0t83zs5kC



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Youth Vote Overwhelming in Obama's Victory -- and Coatails to the Democrats

Youth voters (ages 18-29) didn't just rock the vote, they moved mountains this election year. And, as absentee and early voting ballots continue to get counted, the turnout totals continue to rise. CIRCLE now estimates that:

-- 23 million young voters went to the polls on November 4th -- an increase of 3.4 million over 2004.

-- Youth turnout will likely top off somewhere around 52-53 percent. That rivals the 1992 turnout, and will likely fall just short of the all time record of 55.4percent set in 1972.

-- Young voters accounted for 60 percent of the overall voter turnout increase.

-- CIRCLE still estimates that young voters made up 18 percent of the total electorate. This contrasts with the typical voting heavyweight -- seniors ages 65+ -- who comprised 16 percent of last week's voting public.

Take a look at this great electoral vote map, which pictorially shows how the country's youth tilted. Note that it would have been an even more lopsided Obama win if youth voters had anything to say about it. In fact, Obama's staggering 66-32 percent margin among youth voters likely did decide the election. Well, that and the 7-point gender gap in Obama's favor. Women, young people, and the overwhelming minority voter turnout made the difference.

CQ: Democratic Money Decreases Republican Chances for Victory

Congressional Quarterly, better known as CQ, has changed several race ratings this week. We've all heard about CNN moving Virginia from the swing-state category into the "Leans Democratic" category, thanks to Barack Obama's newly announced 10-point lead in the commonwealth. But here is the low-down on some House races previously thought out of Big Blue's reach. Not anymore, my friends. Here's the gist, from an Oct. 17th posting on CQ.com:

A worsening political environment for Republicans and a massive infusion of cash from the Democratic Party are causing CQ Politics to change the ratings in two dozen congressional races, all in the Democrats’ favor.

Recruiting and funding candidates in dozens of House districts — many of which had not been competitive partisan battlefields in years — is a continuation of the Democrats’ strategy from 2006, when the party made a net gain of 30 House seats to capture the majority.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which is engineering the party’s effort to grow its majority this year, expanded its efforts to put Republican-held seats in play — and recent political developments and just-filed campaign finance reports indicate that the strategy is producing a bounty of contested races that exceeds the expectations of many Democratic optimists.

Kids Tell Parents: Don't Vote for McCain

Kind of along the lines of Sarah Silverman's "The Great Schlep," another campaign is out playing on the power of youth over older voters in the family. This ad, in particular, is aimed at young people -- some too young to vote themselves. It smartly features a few of the actors from the popular CW show, Gossip Girl, and gives humorous ways for young people to talk to -- and stop -- their parents from voting for The Maverick. I find it pretty amusing to have voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) compared to the dangers of drunk driving, with a kid saying: "If you're out and you feel like voting for John McCain, just call me and I'll pick you up -- no questions asked." Then again, considering the selfish binge the Bush administration has been on, spending both the surplus and our international goodwill like drunken sailors, perhaps the perils of a McSame administration are aptly compared.

According to the Partnership for a McCain-Free White House, "Young people overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. But too many of their parents don't. So we launched a fun new ad and site encouraging young people to talk to their parents about John McCain." The campaign, developed by MoveOn.org, gives some important warning signs to look for in parents who may be straying off the progressive path:

1) Prefacing every sentence with "Lemme give you a little straight talk."
2) Arguing that it's crucially important for a president to be erratic and unstable.
3) Referring to the past 8 years of American history as "The Golden Age."
4) Saying things like, "Sarah Palin is a reasonable choice as VP."
5) Having trouble making eye contact.
6) Wandering and pacing aimlessly.
7) Disparaging Spain for no apparent reason.
8) Delusionally believing all people they meet are "[their] friends" —- even though most people are kinda creeped out by them.
9) Being unable to accurately count the number of homes they own, cars they drive, or years the United States should remain in Iraq.
10) Putting a McCain-Palin yard sign in the front lawn.

Time after time this year, we've seen people come out in support of Barack Obama because their children told them to. Or asked them to. Or simply challenged them to follow their hearts and their hopes this time.

But there's more work to do. Right now, young people back Barack Obama by overwhelming numbers. But their parents and grandparents are still leaning more towards John McCain.

People decide who to vote for based on the opinions of the people they trust—and family plays a huge role. The more young people who talk to their parents, the better chance Obama has on November 4th.

Please do your part. Talk to your parents today.

The Partnership's clarion call is clear: Talk to you parents, for the life you save may be your own! Vote for Barack Obama. Amen.





Copyright 2008 (original text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Democrats' Love Triangle: Time for Some Tasty Humble Pie?

Well, folks. I'm sure you've all been waiting with baited breath to see what the Redhead has to say about Tuesday's Democratic Shenanigans. Especially after my open letter to Mistress Clinton -- who I'm convinced could kick my ass, even in a fair fight -- asking her to back out of the race before yesterday's big contests. I didn't write that letter out of any animus, but out of a desire to see Hillary conserve her political power to pursue a leadership role in the Senate. Oh, you've not been on pins and needles looking for this missive? Well, here it is anyway.

So I've been mulling it over -- always a dangerous thing. Clinton wins three out of four -- Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Obama gets the Cherry Garcia consolation prize in winning Vermont. As usual, we Democrats have only managed to further complicate our lives. It's kinda like what happens when you try to date two people at the same time -- it's messy, and eventually you have to chose. And Democratic voters can't seem to chose -- worse yet, a lot of us seem to have love/hate relationships with both our erstwhile suitors. The problem is, like any love triangle, if you don't play your tarot cards right you might just lose them both. Of course, that's my main concern here.

Since neither candidate managed to deliver the proverbial knockout blow, we now face seven weeks of increasingly ugly campaigning between now and the Pennsylvania primary. There are two schools of thought on this: getting all the dirty laundry aired now maybe ain't such a bad thing. On the other hand, if the two candidates manage to inflict serious damage, then we're simply committing a hara-kiri kind of swiftboating before the Republicans even have to lift a finger. Oh, and McCain gets to shift into general campaign mode now -- conserving energy, resources, and consolidating his base -- while we're still kicking the crap out of each other and potentially exhausting all three precious commodities in the election of a lifetime.

Then, there is the whole superdelegate problem. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's suuuper delegate! Looks like it's all coming down to these super special people -- some of whom I hear wish they were in the witness protection program. What to do? Play by the rules the Democrats started the race with, or potentially have a nominee that is chosen not by the people but by the party elite. Is the party of voting rights really going to disenfranchise folks that way -- and risk pissing off our two most important bases, women and African Americans? Then again, both candidates designed their strategies based on the rules as they knew them when they signed up for this clam bake -- is it fair to change the rules now? (um, hell yeah, if it saves the party from imploding.)

There was a very thoughtful analysis provided in an article in The Politico, entitled Democrats Face a Long Brawl. The most provocative point made in this piece is that both campaigns are, essentially, correct in the analysis they are putting forth about where we go from here.

"Obama is right that, at least by conventional standards, she has little prospect of overcoming his delegate lead. ...But Clinton’s aides make clear they are not counting on a conventional strategy. Instead, they will use Ohio and Texas to try to focus attention on several points where they are right. It is true she has performed better in most of the big states, like Ohio, that figure more importantly in the electoral college strategy. Much of her margin came from working-class white voters who opposed Obama overwhelmingly in Ohio and who figure prominently in Pennsylvania. These are the same low- and middle-income, blue-collar Democrats who were instrumental for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is also true that he continues to have problems with Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority group and one with huge upside potential for Democratic gains in November. Exit polls in Texas showed her routing him with this group, just as she did in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday states. Above all, it is true that Clinton showed his vulnerability to an argument — Obama’s relative youth and inexperience -- that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will likely use in the general election."

What's missing in that otherwise thorough analysis, though, is the pretty significant political realignment Obama has inspired through the unprecedented increase in youth voters -- voters that are overwhelmingly going Blue. I've heard it said that Clinton is running the last campaign of the 20th century, and Obama is running the first campaign of the 21st century. The question is, which approach is going to get us the White House against the Maverick and his cronies -- who at the moment are sharpening their knives on the whetstone Democrats are conveniently providing.

I have to admit, I'm no better than the next Democrat, despite my letter to Hillary. That was a purely tactical move to hopefully increase our chances for the White House and preserve her chances for Senate domination. Besides, girlfriend proved me wrong and took both Ohio and Texas. But I've still not figured out how to resolve this particular love triangle. I'm not sure a double date -- a "dream ticket" with both Hillary and Barack -- is even possible after all the murky water that's gone under the bridge. The only thing I know for sure is that I miss John Edwards.

This Women’s History Month, Women's Voices Women Vote is honoring those women that have utilized the internet to amplify their voices. Nominate your favorite woman blogger by March 21, then check back to vote for your favorite among our top 10 women bloggers. http://www.wvwv.org/

Divisive Primary Holds Potential Fallout for the Women's Rights Community

As the battle royale between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues unabated, there has been much talk about the worrisome issue of reuniting the Democratic party once the dust has settled. I have written a juicy blog about it myself, and even gone so far as to encourage Hillary to withdraw now and live to fight another day. It was heartfelt advice as the handwriting on the proverbial wall became clear -- at least to me. Hey, I have no dog in this particular fight -- I was an Edwards girl. I just want a Democrat in the White House on January 20, 2009.

But one aspect of the ever-widening gulf amongst progressives that has not gotten as much attention is the growing breach between established women's rights leaders -- many of them ardent Clinton supporters -- and anti-war women, who back Obama just as passionately. The dynamic is fascinating, and in many ways the gulf mirrors the core issues the women's movement has been wrestling with as it has worked to redefine itself over the past decade.

To reduce the feminist primary split to merely generational -- amongst both the organized leadership of the movement as well as the foot soldiers -- dramatically oversimplifies the issue and also misses some key points. That is not to say that generational differences don't play a role in defining certain aspects of the two camps -- college women crush on Obama and older women clearly identify with Hillary -- it's just that age is not the only factor in play, and may not even be the most important.

In fact, some of the most established, well known women's rights leaders of the past three decades are Obama supporters. As of Feb. 28, almost 1,500 "feminists for peace" had signed a petition endorsing Obama; signatories include prominent women's rights advocates such as writers Barbara Ehrenreich, Alice Walker and Katha Pollitt; Ellen Bravo, former director of 9to5, the National Association of Working Women; political scientist Frances Fox Piven; and actor/activist Susan Sarandon. Former NARAL President Kate Michelman is also counted among Obama's supporters, having jumped to his camp after Edwards pulled out. And, of course, there's Oprah.

Because one of the things feminists do best -- like Democrats -- is kick the crap out of each other, a similar though smaller "Feminists for Clinton" effort was initiated in response. The group includes writer/activists Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner of Manifesta fame; MacArthur "Genius" Fellow economist Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women's Policy Research; Gloria Feldt, former President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and Peg Yorkin, benefactor of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Other Clinton supporters include Martha Burk (of Augusta National Golf Club fame), who came to the Clinton camp when her man Richardson bowed out. Hillary also has the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, and support of NOW President Kim Gandy.

But wait, there was a third feminist statement, this one by Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, a well-known womanist professor of law at UCLA and Columbia University. This dynamic duo labeled the Clinton supporters as

"'either/or' feminists determined to see to it that a woman occupies the Oval Office..." who "...interrogate, chastise, second-guess and even denounce those who escape their encampment and find themselves on Obama terrain. In their hands feminism, like patriotism, is the all-encompassing prism that eliminates discussion, doubt and difference about whom to vote for and why."

Ouch. That's the women's movement for you -- we're just one, big, activist, dysfunctional family. But truthfully, as I said earlier, the best way to analyze the primary split is to break it down along philosophical lines -- it's no coincidence that the split follows the same political fault lines at the very root of the debate over the direction of the women's movement, and what it's ultimate goals should be for women in particular and society as a whole.

Let me explain. During the heydays of the second wave of the women's movement -- the late 1960s through most of the 1980s -- the problems were very well defined, the barriers very visible, the opposition very overt, and many of the solutions very clear. The movement's goal, as well, seemed just as specific and just as clear -- gender equality. But as the women's movement continued to change and grow, and as white women finally began to listen to what women of color had been telling them for decades -- over and over again -- branches of the women's movement began to redefine the movement more broadly as a social justice movement. This was particularly true for Third Wave feminists -- my generation. The intersectionality between gender, race and class became the mantra, and more traditional gender equality advocates -- while not unsupportive of broader social justice ideals -- wondered at the wisdom of supplanting gender equality from the movement's central focus, or subverting pure gender equality goals in favor of other progressive agendas and ideals.

It seems to me that the Clinton/Obama split in the feminist community in many ways mirrors these differing philosophies. Clinton supporters, while supportive of broader social justice initiatives, are nonetheless more focused on the women's movement as a gender equality movement, and on Clinton as an important, long-awaited first in a previously boys-only club. Obama supporters seem to be more focused on the women's movement as a vehicle for broader social justice action -- the focus on anti-war activities is a perfect example. Based on this analysis, it should not be surprising that younger women, less apt to identify with equality rhetoric, are more likely to support Obama, while older women -- more familiar with women's equality issues and the need not only for continued progress but for efforts to protect our gains -- are more reassured by Clinton.

So where does this leave the women's community, those of us actively a part of it and anyone who cares about the future of an active and vibrant movement for women's rights? We're a microcosm for what's going on in the Democratic party this primary season, in that we're having a pretty messy internal debate about which direction we think is best for the movement. This election, in many ways, could be a turning point. Hopefully, though, whatever the outcome, women's advocates can reunite and face the future -- together -- stronger for having the courage to engage in the debate.

Rock the Vote: Youth Voters Empowered for Change

Just this morning (2/25), Rock the Vote released their latest poll of 18-29 year olds -- better known to pundits and bloggers this political season as the youth vote. This is the first poll of these critical voters since Super Tuesday, and it reveals an energized voting block that is increasingly aware of its power to change the course of the election -- and the country. Coming on the heels of an unprecedented uptick in youth voter turnout, the poll results are as interesting as they are encouraging -- for the Democrats, that is.

Key findings from Rock the Vote's poll include:

• Conversations with friends (60%), online videos (34%) and campaign websites (24%) topped the list as resources young people use to obtain information about presidential candidates and the election.


• The top concerns for under-30 voters include jobs and the economy (17%), the war in Iraq (12%), health care (11%), and college affordability (10%).


• When it comes to economic issues, a lack of jobs that pay decent wages (20%), rising health care costs (16%), and expenses like childcare and college tuition (10%) were cited as the most important issues.


• On the war in Iraq, youth voters were somewhat divided: 36% of young people are ready to bring the troops home, 33% feel we should withdraw some troops, and 20% believe we should keep the number of troops as it is now.


• The poll affirmed what anyone with a pulse already knows about this election: young people are passionate and engaged: 80% say they are likely to vote in November and 69% are excited to vote this fall.


• When asked about party affiliation, young voters considered themselves Democrats (47%), Republicans (28%) and Independents (16%).


• Fueling the calls for change, 68% believe the country is on the wrong track.


• An overwhelming majority (89%) believe they have the power to change our country and 75% believe young people are making more of a difference than usual this election season.
  

AND (drum roll, please...)

• When asked which candidate they would send to the White House if the presidential election were held today, young voters favored Hillary Clinton (47%) over John McCain (35%), and Barack Obama (57%) over John McCain (27%). Clearly Obama is pulling in some of those independents, but Hillary beats McCain among this age group, too.

Needless to say, given the primary"youthquake" that portends off-the-charts youth voter turnout in the general election, these figures spell even more bad news for the Grand Old Party. But, the results say great things for democracy. You see, voting can be habit-forming -- start voting young, and you'll keep on voting. And teach your kids to vote. And they'll tell two friends. And so on. And so on. And it's about time, or so says Heather Smith, Rock the Vote's executive director:

"The country is finally witnessing what Rock the Vote has known since 2004 -- young voters are key in shaping the political landscape of our country. They are showing up at the polls, getting their friends to vote, and volunteering for campaigns in record numbers. Today's young adults are demanding action in our country and making known they are an invaluable group for candidates to win the election in November."

'nuf said.

Piling on Hillary with Obama's Naiveté

So, I've been trying to put myself in Hillary Clinton's shoes. While I'll be the first to admit I have never been a huge fan, I don't think she's the antichrist, either. In fact, I have been feeling more than a little chagrined at the glee with which the exaggerated reports of Hillary's demise are being spun by the media, pundits, the blogosphere, and so on. Apparently some other folks aren't too wild about it either. When the news surfaced that Hillary recently loaned her campaign $5 million, it spurred $10 million in online contributions. If Hillary loses the nomination -- even steven, fair and square -- that's fine, that's politics. But I don't want her to lose because her campaign imploded (Bill, please be quiet, just for a while, okay?) or because pundits have demonized her and dissected her like a lab rat. Lately, I have been feeling some sympathy for Hillary -- imagine being this close to your goal, and perhaps sensing it slipping away despite all your preparation and efforts. Imagine people you don't even know saying hateful things about you, in print, on tv, whenever they feel like it. Imagine carrying the hopes and dreams of a generation of women on your shoulders -- and not delivering. I feel for the girlfriend, I really do.

Let me be clear. I'm not sure the gentlelady from New York is the best choice for the Democrats to run against Mr. Maverick in the fall. The speed with which she riles the Republican base is positively breathtaking, and her negative poll numbers -- while in many ways unfair -- are immovably embedded in concrete. In truth, I know people who wouldn't spit on Hillary if she was on fire. This is not a good start for someone trying to win the hearts, minds and votes of the mushy middle and, in the process, the White House. Truthfully, I also am not completely enamored of her politics. While a ziploc sandwich bag has more depth than our current president -- we have no where to go but up, folks -- I still could wish for someone less, well, mainstream. Ironic, huh, since the right has labeled Hillary Clinton as a feminista devil incarnate, straight from the lunatic fringe. She's soooooo not that. In fact, she's got some distressingly Blue Dog-like tendancies -- don't forget, she and Bill did that whole New Democrat thing: read, not progressive.

But I am intensely ambivalent about Obama as well -- albeit for different reasons. As is so often the case, I dearly wish I could combine the best qualities of the two candidates. No, I don't want a hermaphrodite for president -- I'd stick with the XX chromosomes in this instance, because I'd love to see a woman president. And I'd keep Hillary's experience, too -- including her DC, insider savvy -- which seems to be something of a dirty word these days. While Obama's rhetoric about change in Washington -- a new day, the audacity of hope, etc. -- are all very attractive and even occasionally inspiring, they are simply not realistic. No, no, I am not being overly cynical; I just remember what happened to Jimmy Carter. He, too, inherited a country in the midst of an oil-inspired economic downturn. He, too, had little DC experience, and pledged to change the tone. It made for great commercials then, too. And the Republicans ate his lunch, handed him his hat, and sent Carter packing in four years. And, oh yeah, followed up with the Reagan Revolution. I fear the same stonewalling, the same set up would happen to Obama. I believe his intentions are honorable. I believe Obama would sincerely try to change the tone. But it takes two to tango, and the Republicans will have no part of it. In fact, they will take great delight in cutting Barack off at the knees. The Grand Old Party is not magnanimous in defeat, and they'll be plotting Obama's downfall before the ink is dry on his inauguration speech.

I also fear that, in the name of changing the tone and the spirit of compromise, Obama will negotiate away much more, policy-wise, than I would like him too. In short, I fear his good intentions could get us all taken for a ride. Okay, maybe change has to start somewhere, and let it begin with me, blah blah blah... but the Republicans regularly eat their own young and ask for seconds. I just don't know that Obama has the experience and savvy to use the machine, the system, to have even a snowball's chance in hell of creating the change in tone we all want. But, because of his lofty promises and inspiring rhetoric, you can bet Barack will take the fall if change does not come to pass. And, on the political side, Obama has some Libertarian tendencies that don't sit well with me -- there is a reason why those independents and "Obama Republicans" kinda like him. Still, young voters adore him -- for good reason, he's one of us -- and are turning out in record numbers to pay homage.

I know, perhaps I am whining just a bit. We have two good candidates -- history making, talented candidates -- in the Democratic contest. I just can't make up my mind which one I like better, and in truth it comes down to who can beat McCain. Above all, I do not want four more years of a Republican president. Hillary is a tough cookie who has taken everything the right wing can throw at her and come out the stronger for it. She knows what she's in for if she's the nominee, and she's got the best politician in a generation at her side. Barack is inspiring but lacks experience -- though certainly the primary is helping to harden him as a candidate. Still, he has no idea what's in store for him when the swift boat machine starts firing indiscriminate half-truths and veiled innuendos -- and when all those independents who think they like him suddenly become turncoats after the Republican search and destroy mission. Remember, America does not know Barack Obama very well. Hillary -- she's a known quantity. And she can fire up our base, too.

Still, after writing this I have not managed to talk myself into either candidate. I just know that I'll support whoever's the lead dog come November. But a part of me, the girly part, sure hopes Hillary comes out of it okay -- win or lose. She's a trailblazer, and she deserves better than she's getting... and so do the women who I hope will follow her in quick succession.

WWSD: What Would the Suffragists Do? or, Will Women Vote Their DNA?

Once again, women voters are in the driver's seat and charting the course of the Democratic Party -- and it's not because the men would not stop to ask for directions. That's right, ladies. When you line up at the polls on Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday, your shear numbers will once again be determining the fate of the Democratic nominees. You Go, Girls!

There are basically two sentiments running through the girl-power set these days. It goes something like this:

• If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere. It's past time one of our own was in the White House, dammit, and she's ready for the job.


• If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman and she's a woman, isn't that almost as sexist as NOT voting for her because she's a woman?

That's the issue many of us have been mulling, especially when both candidates clearly have much to recommend them. Do you vote for a woman to finally and forever shatter that particular marble ceiling? Or do you make a decision that is not confined by gender but rather empowered by your own conscience. Hmmm.... it's a tough call, especially when Obama's bid to become the first black president is every bit as historic as Clinton's run for the record books. And when McCain is breathing down our necks. Baby boomer women (mid-40's to mid-60s) seem particularly torn about their choice, wavering between honoring their mothers and listening to their daughters.

Are women who vote for Obama somehow traitorous? Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Clare McCaskill (MO), Reps. Rosa DeLauro (CT) and Jan Schakowsky (IL), Gov. Janet Napolitano (AZ) and writer Alice Walker would argue otherwise -- none of them are slouches when it comes to women's equity. Women's rights advocate Kate Michelman, an Edwards supporter, has joined the Obama camp now that Edwards has bowed out. Among women "Barack stars," there does not seem to be any sense of opportunity lost in supporting Obama over Clinton. They simply believe in their candidate, and they also believe there will be another woman in the near future. The women for Obama seem to be saying to women nationwide, "it's okay, there's still time to change your mind." There is real confidence that, once busted, this particular barrier will be down to stay -- that Hillary is just the first of many (Margaret Thatcher might beg to differ, but that is the sentiment).

I think there will be other women in my lifetime who will run for president. This isn't going to be women's only chance to vote our DNA, should we chose to do so. And perhaps that is the crux of the matter: this inevitability divide is also often a generational divide. It's no coincidence that Hillary's biggest fan base is women over 65 -- women who've been waiting their whole lives for the chance to vote for a woman. Women who are the least likely to pass this way again. Women whose grandmothers were suffragists.

On the other hand, women can often be our own worst enemy. Women are often the most critical of women candidates, holding them to a higher standard and personalizing our decisions about them. Some women's disdain for Hillary's decision to fight for her marriage rather than leave her philandering husband is a good example; using this as a basis for a presidential vote is rediculous. While Obama has been closing fast in the polls, lots of women could wake up Tuesday -- as they seemed to do in New Hampshire a few weeks ago -- look in the mirror and think to themselves: "Am I smokin' crack? Am I really going to vote against the first viable women candidate? Put down the pipe!"

All this leads me to wonder, what would the suffragists do if faced with this dilemma? I mean, besides a little happy dance that such a wealth of choices is ours to begin with? These women were all about the vote, the franchise, the fundamental right of women to speak their minds at the ballot box. They would rejoice at the pivotal role women's votes now play in most elections, marveling at the gender gap but also encouraging ALL people to exercise this basic responsibility of citizenship. Somehow, I can't imagine the suffragists would want us to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. In fact, Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't want that kind of support, any more than Obama wants us to vote for him just because he's a black man. Both these candidates have encouraged us too look into our hearts, our guts -- but not our DNA. To cast a vote on such a simplistic notion disrespects the right those suffragists fought and even died for not all that long ago.

Who's the Better Bet Against McCain?

There are clear and obvious differences between both Democratic candidates and Republican frontrunner-again John McCain. Lots of folks, however, think that Clinton and Obama are similar enough on the critical policy points -- despite style differences -- that the larger question facing party loyalists is which of the two makes a stronger showing against the Maverick.

One of the biggest bones of contention between Democrats and Republicans is, of course, the war in Iraq and the overall conduct of the War on Terror. While I think both Democrats could score easy points against McCain's intractable position, there is no denying that Obama has an advantage here. It's a no-brainer for McCain (or some swiftboat-like entity) to accuse Clinton of being just as complicit in the move towards war because she also voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. Obama, on the otherhand, can say McCain showed poor judgment on the Iraq War from the get go, and Mr. Surge has no defense against that. (As Obama said in the most recent debate -- sure, Clinton has experience from day one, but it's better to be right from day one.) Democrats looking to cast their vote strategically might not want to let this obvious rhetorical and policy advantage slip through their fingers by choosing a nominee that also voted for the war.

Of course, the war has a flip side as a voting issue. There is no denying we are waist-deep into the mess, and the idea of experienced leadership to pull us out of it is not only attractive but reasonable. In times of war, Americans have often been reassured by turning to veterans. The Republicans have a bona fide war hero in McCain. While the top two Democrats don't have military experience, Clinton does have a lot of experience, period -- which could be an important counterpoint to a nation weary of war that's also in the process of selecting a new president. Of course, there are still lingering gender stereotypes about a woman as commander-in-chief, but I think Clinton's confident manner puts a lot of them to rest.

There is another factor to consider. The right-wing base -- including the all-important talk radio royalty as well as TV talking heads and bloggers -- has its knickers in a twist over the idea of riding the Straight Talk Express all the way to the White House. They are scared spitless that McCain is a closet liberal -- there are even attack ads running to that effect, designed with an eye towards derailment. Interestingly enough, while Republicans like to bash Clinton as a lefty liberal, it's Obama who has the truly liberal record. In fact, for 2007, the National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate -- compared to a relatively middle of the pack composite rating of 16th for Hillary. This liberal tag is sure to be used against Obama, but then again it will be used against Clinton, too, however inaccurately -- so this one's a draw. Besides, I'm tired of running from the word liberal like my mama's coming after me to wash my mouth out with soap. It's time we reclaimed it, with pride.

Unfortunately, about the only thing that can rally the entire vast right wing conspiracy behind John McCain might be -- Hillary Clinton. I've always thought the way she's been demonized was grossly unfair, not to mention inaccurate -- then again, considering the source, truth-telling was not exactly the first priority. I mean, what has Hillary really done to earn such animosity, besides stand by her hugely successful, philandering husband? Wait, maybe it's the hugely successful husband part -- despite the mud and special prosecutors and impeachments thrown his way. Hillary Clinton is polarizing by association, because right wingers have spent the better part of two decades unsuccessfully trying to convince the American people that Bill Clinton was the devil incarnate. Fair or foul, the right wing can't wait to go to war against the Clintons again -- and they will marshall resources the likes of which we've never seen to stop a Hillary presidency. Conversely, if it's Obama versus McCain in the final round, they just might dislike McCain more -- due to simple muscle memory. But, let's face it, the reflex to hate Hillary is stronger. No way around it -- it's a liability that has got to be factored into the equation.

Perhaps most importantly, voters are overwelmingly in favor of change this election cycle. If Obama is running, he is clearly the candidate of change. If Clinton is running, McCain could almost make an argument that you would get more change out of a Maverick White House than you would under another Clinton administration. It's that whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty thing. We've had a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket since 1980 -- think about it. Then again, Hillary's assertion that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it well might take another Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, has a certain appeal.

Then again, all this strategic analysis about who's a better bet against McCain might not be as relevant as in prior election cycles. This year, I think it's universally understood that a pure base strategy loses in the end. You need independents, and you need the youth vote who -- while more reliably Democratic, also has an independent streak. Given the whole John Kerry debacle, I'm not sure that voting for the person you think is the most electable is the best choice. I say, go with your gut -- and go for a historic first in the White House in November, as long as it's a Democrat.

Youth Action Can Make Political History...Again

The first day of February is a course-altering day in American History. It was on this date in 1960 that four men first walked into a Woolworth's store in Greensboro, NC. They purchased books and school supplies, and then sat down at the lunch counter. The men, freshmen at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, pretty much knew they wouldn't be getting a hamburger and fries that day. You see, they were black and this particular lunch counter was segregated-- whites only.

That very first sit-in didn't accomplish a whole lot. The store manager was all too happy to let the guys just sit there until closing time. But the students had this idea -- radical at the time -- that if they bought goods in one part of the store, there was no reason why they shouldn't be able to purchase services in another part of the store. And when a larger group of students returned the next day, well.... you know the rest of the story. The media moved in, civil rights groups spread the word to other campuses north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, and in two weeks students in 11 cities held sit-ins. By the summer of 1961, similar acts of civil disobedience had attracted over 70,000 people and resulted in more than 3,000 arrests. Sit-ins became an integral tactic that marked a change in the civil rights movement, demonstrating that nonviolent action -- and most importantly, that young activists -- could be effective weapons in the fight against segregation.

Young people changed the world that day back in 1960. And their youth movement continued to push the envelope well into the '70s, with a counter culture that stopped an unpopular war and reshaped restrictive values and old social norms. Hmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu, here. Why? Because I believe young people are set to make another kind of history this election season. Perhaps it won't feel as world-altering as the achievements of the hippy generation, but I think it has the potential to have long-term consequences. This is going to be the election where young people not only find their voice, but assert their power at the ballot box as well. And in so doing, young voters will chose the nominees for both parties and -- if they trouble themselves to vote in November at the same rates they have in the primaries -- could well be the determining factor on the final outcome this fall.

Just look at the numbers:

• Iowa: Turnout up 315% to 65,230 votes


• New Hampshire: Turnout up 274% to 84,232


• South Carolina: Turnout up 145% to 118,565


• Florida: Turnout up 355% to 285,970

To keep mixing my generational metaphors by quoting a '60s tune, "there's something happening here." Except, I think what's happening here is exactly clear. The youth vote, as it's being called, will make or break the candidates on Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday. And the nominees that these new voters coronate will usher in a new era in American politics in a variety of directions: Clinton is the first woman, Obama the first African American, McCain would be the oldest to win the nomination, Romney would be the first Mormon. It seems fitting, actually, that a generation that has grown up with diversity as the norm would usher in this era of firsts. This is also a generation sick of their elders telling them what's best, and tired of political business as usual. Frankly, they don't think we've done such a great job on their behalf. It's about time these young voters stepped up to the plate, and I can't wait to see where it takes all of us. The Rock the Vote pledge says it all:

"I pledge to vote. I've had enough of politicians making decisions about our lives without our input -- this year, we're picking the president."

Times Endorsement: A Yawn for Young Voters

The 24-hour TV news outlets were all over the New York Times' announcement of their presidential primary endorsements yesterday, and the narrative was a helluva lot more fascinating than the latest Britney Spears crash and burn -- and perhaps even the endorsements themselves. Strangely enough, I still kinda got the feeling of a crash and burn -- or at the very least the ending of an era -- when it came to the Times endorsement. I can't tell you how many times the venerable paper was referred to as the "voice of the Liberal Establishment." Calling it a "Liberal bastion" was also popular. Even The Zaftig Redhead lists the Times under "Old Reliables" as a source on this very blog. Kinda makes the Times -- also famous for its Square, ironically enough -- sound a bit creaky, stuffy, ivory-towerish, maybe even a little bit behind the, um, times. Nonetheless, the New York Times' endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and John McCain in the Republican primary was discussed as BIG news.

It was big news because, well, it was the New York Times -- and simple muscle memory and tradition dictates that what that paper says shall be taken with all due seriousness and like the medicine it is. It was big news because the Florida primary is on the horizon, and approximately half of Mickey Mouse's new disciples migrated there from one of the five boroughs. It was big news because McCain squirmed like a kid in Sunday pew when he heard about the endorsement -- trying to be good but really really really not wanting to be there. It was news because of the delightfully insulting way in which the Times dissed Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man..." whose "arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking." (Damn, wish I'd written that.) And it was news because the Times dissed hometown Mayor Rudy yet endorsed transplant Senator Hillary -- but of course, who is more Democratic Establishment than Hillary?

And that, my friends, is where it gets truly interesting. Because the talk about the Times' endorsements was about why they were interesting, not why they were important. And I would largely agree, but for one caveat -- I think the Democratic endorsement still carries weight in Florida, where you can't walk three feet without tripping over Hillary's prime demographic -- women over 65. And hey, if they hail from the Empire State originally, mores the better.

Otherwise, though, the Times endorsement -- while interesting, is not all that necessary, to any candidate, anymore. Not in this era of CHANGE. Not in this era of young voters finally sowing their electoral oats and turning out in droves. Not in this era of voters -- young and old -- who turn suddenly deaf when phrases like "that's how we've always done it" are uttered. Indeed, the Times, while saying largely good things about Obama, calling him "the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois," seemed also to be saying that he was not quite ready for the Big Show. It is a sentiment many voters feel -- but not younger voters, who themselves are tired of hearing from their own bosses that they need to wait their turn. Bosses who can't use an Excel spreadsheet, have no idea how to send a text message, or even program their damn DVRs. So, for these voters, the Times endorsement may be news, it may be interesting, but it's not important. Not in the era of the blogosphere and RSS feeds and The Daily Show. These voters want to know who Jon Stewart is going to endorse -- now that would be important.


By the way, signs point to a record voter turnout today in South Carolina. Regardless of the outcome, Democrats generally have got to be jazzed about the energy amongst the base -- folks who have had it with four years of imperial idiocy are letting their feet -- and their votes -- do the talking. Here's hoping the outrage holds through November.

Courting Single Women Voters: Bring Change

Single women turned out in droves in Iowa and New Hampshire. About time these babes showed up! According to census data, 46 percent of voting-age women nationwide are unmarried, but they made up a lame 22.4 percent of voters in 2004 and a truly shameful 19 percent in the debacle of 2000. These single women seem especially partial to Democrats -- in fact, unmarried women are much more likely to crush on the Dems than women overall. Since Michigan was such an unfortunate aberration (see January 15, 2008 blog), inquiring minds want to know if Nevada and South Carolina will similarly showcase single women flexing their electoral muscle.

An empowered block of sex-in-the-city voters is a flashing neon smiley face for the Democrats. If single women continue to speak their minds in greater numbers and stay faithful to the Democrats to boot, it could swing the partisan pendulum in November and beyond -- potentially cementing the new majorities in Congress for years to come. But the Democrats need a plan to cash in on all this love coming their way, because unmarried women -– more than any voting block -- are the most dissatisfied with the way things are going ‘round the neighborhood. Can you say CHANGE? Well, we know the candidates can -- over and over and over again (currently, they're trying to say it a lot in Spanish or with a Southern drawl). But can the Democrats actually deliver -- that's the vital question, and single women are demanding answers. If Big Blue can convince single women voters, it could be a marriage made in electoral heaven.

And women voters overall continue to kick ass and take names in the primaries. Enter, again, the Edwards Factor. Tongues are still waging about Hillary's netting 47 percent of the women's vote in New Hampshire to overcome Obama's Iowa-influenced polling advantage. But, insightful observers note that the Granite state's outcome demonstrates the impact of a three-way race. Obama drew about the same percentage of women voters in New Hampshire as he did in the cornfield caucuses; it was Edwards' lapse with the ladies that created Clinton's gain. Similarly, it was Edwards who pulled the rug out from under Hillary in Iowa; lots of women caucused for him in 2004 and stood by their man this year as well.

Notably, women voters seem to be the deciding factor on both sides of the aisle. Obama and Huckabee wooed us in Iowa, Hillary and McCain got our come back support in New Hampshire -- even Romney in the bllink-and-you-miss-it Wyoming GOP caucus -- all won at least in part by carrying the plurality of women.

So, onward to Nevada, South Carolina and Florida, then to the 23-state elections on Feb. 5. In the past this was called Super Tuesday, but in this year of all election years, everything's changing -- and the first Tuesday in February is no exception. Given that it's been super-sized since 2004 -- when only seven states went to the polls -- folks have been calling it "Super-Duper Tuesday" or "Super Nuclear Tuesday ." Me? I think I'll be calling it Ladies Night Out, and I'm hoping the girls really strut their stuff.