Uncategorized


The Women’s Media Center invites you to submit your questions to be asked at the Presidential Debate! We want to hear from you on issues that matter to, and affect, women. Click here to submit your questions, and continue reading below for information about the WMC’s initiative to add women’s voices to these historic and deeply significant debates.

The public responded to Show Me The Women, and so did one of the moderators Bob Schieffer of CBS. He is moderating the October 15 debate which focuses on domestic issues, and he invited The Women’s Media Center and its supporters to give him suggestions for questions he should ask at the debate. We have contacted the other moderators and requested that they accept our questions as well. To date, none have agreed.

The deadline to submit questions will be 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, October 1st .

Since all three Presidential debate moderators are old, white men (much like one of the candidates), there is a serious need for diverse voices to be represented. Cheers to Bob Schieffer for inviting our questions. Now we’ll see if he uses any of them!

There are probably more than 3, but James Fallows’piece at The Atlantic really rang true for me. He discusses three traits that Bush brings to decision-making that have been disastrous for our country.

The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:

1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) “Decisiveness”

That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

We don’t know for sure about #2 for Palin yet — she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3.   Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.

Her claim that she didn’t blink when McCain asked her to be VP scares many people. It’s admirable to be smart enough to know when you’re in over your head on something.

John Dickerson at Slate has a similar observation:

Finally, like Bush, Palin does not appear to let her unfamiliarity with the material hold her back. She was at pains throughout the interview to demonstrate her decisiveness. This makes political sense: What better way to reassure people about her ability as a leader than to look decisive?

But by repeatedly asserting that she will “not blink,” Palin was eerily Bush-like. She offered a black-and-white worldview of bold decisions made quickly and changed reluctantly for fear of showing weakness. Sound familiar?

Bush would never admit he was wrong about anything. He was so quick to jump to conclusions. What’s wrong with Palin saying that she consulted with friends and family, did some research, and then came to the conclusion she was up for the job? Her false sense of confidence despite her increasingly obvious ignorance is exactly like Bush.

Not to mention the secrecy (private email account for government business), warmongering (Russia?!), fear of science (no stem cell research, but lots of creationism), disdain for the constitution (refusing to cooperate with investigations, subpoenas), etc.

*   *   *

Dear McCain-Palin supporters,

Do you really want 4 more years of George Bush’s policies? Please help me to understand your reasoning. Are you happy with war, greed, and ignorance?

Sincerely,

Noticed

*   *   *

UPDATE: Oh, and then there’s that whole executive branch connection to Cheney. (ThinkProgress)

When Hillary Clinton pointed out examples of sexism in the media she was accused of playing the gender card, or whining.

Now, the McCain camp suggests that anyone who doesn’t treat Sarah Palin with “deference” is being sexist.

Ari Melber points out very nicely why this is a problem:

Actual sexism still infects American culture and U.S. politics, of course. But McCain and Palin undermine the fight for equality when they falsely and cynically stage fake offenses.

McCain’s decision to put a woman on his ticket was laudable and inspiring, (as I’ve written before), and regardless of the motives, it was good for the country.

McCain’s overall conduct is more significant than that one action, however. His cynical attempt to cloak his ticket in gendered victimhood is an offense to all women and men who value equality and to any voters who still desire a campaign devoted to a truthful debate of the issues.

UPDATE: McCain’s claim that Obama was using the “lipstick on a pig” claim to refer to Sarah Palin is a perfect example of McCain crying wolf when it comes to sexism.  McCain himself used the exact same phrase when referring to Hillary Clinton.  So, either he’s calling himself sexist with this latest attack on Obama, or he’s crying wolf.  McShameless.

Amy Goodman of ‘Democracy Now!,’was assaulted and detained while doing her job outside the Republican National Convention.

Here are some excerpts, but you can read the whole account here (Truthdig).

I was arrested with my two colleagues, “Democracy Now!” producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

You can read a transcript of Goodman’s arrest here and see video.  Over at FreePress you can sign a petition to drop charges against journalists who were simply doing their jobs.

What strikes me from Goodman’s article and the transcript is how violently they were treated when they asked respectful, basic questions of the officers or Secret Service personnel.  Goodman had her press pass ripped from around her neck and one of her producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, had the plastic cuffs tightened by a man whom he had asked to loosen them because they were hurting him.  Obviously, at a full-blown riot the whole ‘innocent until proven guilty’standard is difficult to follow, but these were well-known, accredited journalists trying to cover the protests as part of their job.  Where is the outcry?

In a nail-biting pitcher’s duel today, it took the US softball team extra innings to defeat Japan.

If you follow softball, you can probably name some players on the team. If you don’t, you might be able to name one.

Jennie Finch may be the face of women’s softball but it is U.S. team mate Crystl Bustos whose heart provides the beat for the most dominating team at the Beijing Games.

While Finch and many of her team mates look as if they just walked out of swimsuit photo shoot (Finch turned down an offer to pose for Playboy), Bustos’s allure is on the baseball diamond and she makes no apologies for it. (Guardian)
So if Jennie Finch is the face, Crystl Bustos is the body, right? Well, no, because they not-so-subtly suggest here that it’s her teammates (not her) that look like they could pose in swimsuits. And why would she apologize for doing her thing on the field?
Looking as if she could bench press any one of her team mates with her thick tattooed arms, Bustos admits she was well known to local police growing up in California and was a regular visitor to the principal’s office for fighting.
So…she’s scary and mean and therefore a bad role model and that’s why she can’t be the face of softball?
But the woman Sport Illustrated as labelled the Babe Ruth of softball, is by all accounts a slugger with a heart of gold.
“She is probably the most giving, caring person I have ever met in this game,” U.S. coach Mike Candrea told Reuters. “She gives back much more than she ever takes from this game.
Oh.  Well, hmm…she really seems to be the total package on and off the field. What’s stopping Bustos from being the next face of USA softball?
See if you can guess from the following tidbits:
With her bruising physique and pulverizing swing, she’s been called softball’s Babe Ruth — with a braided ponytail. (NBC Olympics)
Bustos was born to hit, and no woman in the history of softball has ever hit home runs like she has. A skinny, left-handed slap hitter as a kid, Bustos made herself a power hitter through hard work. (NBC Olympics)
And on a team of women with sculpted bodies and refined features, the robust, 5-foot-7 Bustos stands out — and not just because of her tattoos. She’s the center on a squad of quarterbacks and running backs. (NBC Olympics)
For years, she has been painted in one dimension, as a bruising basher, the Babe Ruth of softball, a top-heavy woman wielding a wicked stick. She is an attention grabber, mostly because of her towering home runs and partly because she stands out among teammates that generally look as if they could have belonged to the same sorority. (NY Times)
Okay, and this one probably gives it away:
If you’ve seen even a moment of softball highlights, you’ve probably noticed Bustos, who is listed at 225 pounds, appears to weigh significantly more than that, and packs serious power at the plate. (Fanhouse)
These articles don’t exactly dance around the fact that Bustos isn’t skinny. They do this by talking about her strong arms, a physical feature that most softball players have. They use words like “thick,” “bruising,” and “robust.” They compare her to her teammates. They compare them in such a way that insults all involved, by focusing on their physical characteristics and reducing most of them to just “pretty faces,” rather than the world-class athletes that they are.
Crystl Bustos is the best example of an Olympian that there is, as evidenced by the praise of her teammates and her performance on the field. She comes through in clutch moments and is the epitome of a professional athlete. She will do more for softball off the field, by reaching out to kids and being herself, than any swimsuit spread could do.  The fans that are drawn in my the photo spread don’t stick around; they move on to the next trendy “face of the game.” Real sports fans know that it isn’t faces that win games, it’s hearts.
Photo by Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Photo by Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

OpenSecrets.org, which tracks money in U.S. politics, reports that contributions from deployed troops are six times greater for Obama than they are for McCain.

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they’d be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars — or whatever they can spare — towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.

Though McCain touts his reputation with military personnel, this popularity is not reflected by campaign donations.

Army Specialist Jay Navas contributed $250 while deployed in Iraq, but it wasn’t over the Internet. “It took some effort to get that check. I had my mom send me my checkbook and I walked to the post office in Camp Liberty in Baghdad with an envelope addressed to Barack Obama in Chicago, Illinois,” he said. “He was right on Iraq long when others were jumping into the sea like lemmings, and that’s hard to do. We’re soldiers and we respect courage.”

Navas anecdotally confirmed that soldiers are often conservative but that many are making an exception in the presidential race. “Most of my friends are conservative Republicans and they say, ‘I’m voting for Barack.’McCain does not have a lock on the military vote, that’s for sure,” he said. “We’ll complete our duty — I’m deploying next year — because it’s a commitment I made to the nation, not to a president. But we all know that Iraq was a big mistake.”

Despite the fact that “money talks,” McCain will continue to lie and say that he has support from all the veterans groups. He consistently disregards facts for whatever is convenient at the moment. He may continue to brag about the success of the surge, saying that Obama’s judgment on Iraq was faulty despite the fact that he did not support the war in the first place. Perhaps the troops also know that Obama supported the new GI bill, while McCain did not.

It has nothing to do with cameras or basketball. I think they just want to come home.

UPDATE: Contrast the post above with this one, from ThinkProgress, noting that top CEOs donate more to McCain 10:1.  Which candidate has your best interests in mind — the one  the troops favor or the one the CEOs of big corporations favor?  Which is more likely to have your financial interests in mind?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers