Sarah Palin: The Clarence Thomas of Feminism

OK, I've done it. I promised myself I wouldn't give any more attention to the Alaskan governor. Ignore her, and she'll fade away as a public figure- a female Dan Quayle who will be in 'Where Is She Now?' articles in fifteen years.

Promise done broke.

Yesterday I was reading an issue of the New Yorker reviewing a Clarence Thomas memoir. I'm not a big Clarence Thomas fan. The man most definitely benefited from his race in climbing through the Reagan and Bush I administrations, but seems hell-bent through his rulings on the Supreme Court to want to lift the rope ladder away from those who would wish to follow him. After reading Rebecca Traister's piece about Sarah Palin in today's Salon I'm pretty certain Mrs. Palin is the feminist Clarence Thomas.

In this strange new pro-woman tableau, feminism -- a word that is being used all over the country with regard to Palin's potential power -- means voting for someone who would limit reproductive control, access to healthcare and funding for places like Covenant House Alaska, an organization that helps unwed teen mothers. It means cheering someone who allowed women to be charged for their rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla, who supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, who has inquired locally about the possibility of using her position to ban children's books from the public library, who does not support the teaching of sex education.

In this "Handmaid's Tale"-inflected universe, in which femininity is worshipped but females will be denied rights, CNBC pundit Donny Deutsch tells us that we're witnessing "a new creation ... of the feminist ideal," the feminism being so ideal because instead of being voiced by hairy old bats with unattractive ideas about intellect and economy and politics and power, it's now embodied by a woman who, according to Deutsch, does what Hillary Clinton did not: "put a skirt on." "I want her watching my kids," says Deutsch. "I want her laying next to me in bed."

Welcome to 2008, the year a tough, wonky woman won a primary (lots of them, actually), an inspiring black man secured his party's nomination for the presidency, and a television talking head felt free to opine that a woman is qualified for executive office because he wants to bed her and have her watch his kids! Stop the election; I want to get off.

Rebecca, I'm with you. Just like Justice Thomas stuck to the Republican playbook to get where he wanted to go, Mrs. Palin has made a career of being acceptable to political neanderthals. How could this woman appeal to Hillary fans? The two are truly from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I don't believe in any kind of Mrs. Palin character assassination. But she is not a feminist, and her rise has not done anything for women's greater good.

Wow! McCain's Chelsea Clinton Joke

The Presidential campaign now appears neck-and-neck, thereby abiding by the MSM's vested interest. I am not shocked by this, but I am shocked at the joke Sen. McCain told earlier last month at a Republican Senate fund-raiser.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Thank you, Salon. No major media outlet printed this 'joke'. A few outlets made mention of an offensive comment. I don't want to get into a tangential argument over the media's bizarre dislike of Hillary, but what I do want to do is highlight the kind of man Sen. McCain is.

I personally believe that character does matter in a candidate. Sen. McCain gets a free-ride on this issue because of his war experience, even though he did not suffer. But this man and his campaign have already gone on the defensive that attacks on Gov. Palin's family are (rightly) petty and mean. Well, what about lewd, non-funny ripostes about another fellow female candidate's family? And remember this incident?

Obama is no Messiah. But McCain is certainly a mean, bitter man. To paraphrase Nixon's comment about Barbara Bush, McCain 'sure do[es] know how to hate'.

Remember who you are voting for when you enter the booth.

What Got Us Here

I'm about to admit publicly a fact that I've been hiding for many, many years. In 2000, I voted for George Bush. There. I said it. Now here's why.

My parents are in no way liberals. Abortion, for instance, is a major issue for them. My brother and sisters continue to rag on my father for voting for Nixon in '68. But a funny thing happened. America became more conservative, and as this sea change occurred, my moderate parents moved ever closer to the left.

My parents are New Deal babies. They believe a government has a social responsibility to its constituents. When Ronald Reagan became president, this philosophy was painted as radical. My earliest political memory is my grandmother, Irene, calling Reagan a 'damn idiot' during one of his State of the Union addresses. I stayed up to watch Mondale lose with my mother, hoping beyond hope that Reagan would not win again. I rooted for Dukakis in '88.

But then the Iraq War I happened. My father was adamantly against the war, but my sister Michelle, my mother, and I were impressed. George Bush and his aides had confronted a notoriously bad man and prevented him from attaining his wishes of regional domination. He also got us out immediately afterward, and did all of this with immense international support. Republicans couldn't be all bad, right?

Bill Clinton held the office for the rest of the '90's, and the idealistic teen I became was fairly disillusioned. I watched Rwanda happen, and our government did nothing. I watched Bosnia happen for years and years, and our government did nothing for the longest time. At home, I saw a president forced into mortal combat with an unyielding Republican majority in Congress. Nothing got done.

Then Bill did the Monica in the Oval Office. I was truly appalled. Looking back now, most of my anger was jealousy. I suffered from the pious self-righteousness of the 'not-getting-laid'. In '00, Al Gore ran a ridiculously awful campaign. I watched the whole thing thinking, "He's gonna let the boob son win. How is that possible?" Sickened, when I entered the booth I couldn't vote for anyone who had made such a fiasco out of a sure thing. Hey, Bush had Cheney with him and Powell, right? Just like the old days!

So I voted for George Bush.

Very quickly, I discovered the error of my ways and I intend on making up for that failure of conscientious citizenship.

But I was not alone. Millions of fellow Americans were similarly hood-winked. My father has developed a wacky conspiracy theory that the right is a concentrated, shadowy organization (a true Evil Empire) which developed plans hundreds of years into the future intending to disenfranchise the American citizen. I don't believe this, because I don't know how it explains the current disaster which is the Republican party. I do believe there is an industrial cabal, though, who intends to use the Republican party as a means to further their short-term, selfish goals. And I believe this has been going on for years and has reached its pinnacle in the George Bush II administration.

Thomas Frank agrees. In Salon, he discusses his great new book, "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" , where he does all the research to reveal the greedy machinations of the forces behind today's Republican party. Frank reveals that an extreme, corporate, anti-government hatred existed before the depression. This from a 1928 pamphlet:

"The best public servant is the worst one. A thoroughly first-rate man in public service is corrosive. He eats holes in our liberties. The better he is and the longer he stays the greater the danger. If he is an enthusiast -- a bright-eyed madman who is frantic to make this the finest government in the world -- the black plague is a house pet by comparison."

The forces behind the Republican party still believe this. We must inform everyone that the Republicans are sock puppets of corporate interests who care very little about America's long-term well-being. Sure, the Democrats receive contributions as well from corporate America. But there is in no way the incestuous relationship between money, lobbyists, and policy as there is with the Republicans.

Do not repeat the same mistake I did. Inform yourself, and vote for the future.