I have no wish to pollute Lance's place with partisan-within-partisan politics, so I'll do it here.  A commenter over there says:

From the tears to the whining to the employment of the bludgeon of fear as if Rove himself were creating [Clinton's] campaign ads, she's made me queasy. The queasiness began, actually, about 2 years ago, when her presidential ambitions were first being whispered about, and she suddenly appeared at a Congressional hearing without her traditional neck scarf but with a honking great gold cross around her neck. Can anyone say "pander"?

And from that moment onward I think that she has been about as naked a political animal as it's possible to be. Even more naked than Bill (whom I loved), because she lacks his compensatory charisma. And when, recently, she pulled out that "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" line on Obama, as if none of us remembered that a scant month or so ago she was kvetching about unfair coverage in the middle of a freakin' debate--to the point that SNL parodied it--that was pretty much it for me. That's when I decided that I couldn't in good conscience support her. Because she disgusts me.

Oh, if she ends up being the candidate against McCain, of course I'll vote for her. But it will be with me holding my nose. If Obama becomes the candidate, I'll vote with bated breath, too, but it will be from anticipation, expectation, and a touch of anxiety.

1) As if Obama's anti-war speech weren't somehow politically motivated?  Please.

2) As I recall, Clinton wasn't kvetching about the debates, nor the fact that she received most of the pertinent questions first, until after SNL offered the junior Senator from Illinois a pillow, at which point she did, admittedly call attention to that fact.

3)  Both the president and his current SecDef Robert Gates have shed actual tears in recent days.  Unless one is prepared to castigate them for womanish emotionalism, one should probably refrain from beating up Hillary Clinton because her voice broke while on the campaign trail.

One would think women would be done with calling other women to account for tears of frustration, but apparently such is not always the case.

4) As far as the bludgeon of fear, I assume we are directed to the ad depicting national and international crises faced by our current Raggedy Andy during his administration.  I may have mistakenly believed his bumbles fair game for our party to question; I may mistaken have believed that a woman could claim equal ground with men in terms of being prepared for such disasters; I was not aware, however, that calling the man's experience into question was automatic grounds for dismissal. 

If Obama wins, so be it, but one has to wonder at his doing so through typical dog-whistle politics.  Can't he beat her without the crap?  And if not, doesn't that put the lie to the idea that she *only* wins when stoopid, old, dried-up white girls vote for her?  I mean, I'll admit I'm not alone, but there just aren't that many idiot racist old white crones out there.

Oh, and by the same token, if Obama wins, I'll hold my nose and vote, but I won't like it.  Not like I once hoped, anyway.

Senator Obama is, without doubt or reasonable debate, an inspiring speaker.  Most politicians could only dream of his facility with words, or the firebreak it seems to buy him.

Congrats on Pa.

 

Today is the 12th annual celebration of Equal Pay Day, a day not when women actually achieve equal earning power with similarly qualified men, but on day on which we are reminded we haven't achieved that yet, because today is the day we catch up with their earnings from last year.   The exact date varies because some years it takes us a little longer to catch up than others, but it's always on a Tuesday - that's the day in week 2 when women catch up to men's earnings in week 1.

But hey, at least we're allowed to collect a paycheck at all now, which is something, I guess.  The Supreme Court has done what it can fairly recently to see to it we don't get to pester our employers overmuch about it, though, having rendered a 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (May 2007) which "prohibits an employee from legally challenging a case of wage discrimination more than 180 days after the original discriminatory act occurred." (Feminist Majority Foundation)

180 days after the original discriminatory act.  That means that even if the discrimination is ongoing, a woman cannot file suit, which, of course, assumes we both become aware of the issue and can form a substantive claim of discrimination - notoriously difficult to prove in the first place, let alone within 6 months.  The ruling effectively shut down any wage discrimination suits by any woman, ever.

So, you want to know how to celebrate today?  Give your old Senator a ringy-dingy (by phone at 866-338-1015 or email) and let him or her know you want them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843), to be voted upon tomorrow.  The Act would reinstate the previous interpretation that each discriminatory paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination and thereby restarts the 180-day clock for filing a complaint with the EEOC.

I appreciate that, for various reasons, some people are opposed equitable remuneration.  I don't get it, but I acknowledge it.  This isn't that, though; it simply affords the right to be heard.  What reasonable person could oppose that?

For more on this, see I Had to Ask.

In case you couldn't tell, I like Hillary Clinton.  I always have, from the moment she brazenly suggested that first ladies could be more than window dressing, to the moment she acknowledged the "vast right-wing conspiracy" anyone with half a (left) eye had already seen, to the moment she decided "standing by your man," could be the better part of valor, to the moment she announced her candidacy for this nation's highest office.  I have sent contributions; I have written letters.  I genuinely like the woman.  I even like Bill.  I wouldn't want to be married to him, but he was a good president, if not a good husband, and based on his politics, I like him.

Which is why this is difficult to say.

The two biggest problems with the Senator's campaign have been her husband and her staff.  Bill's re-dust-up over the South Carolina comments do his wife no favors.  He's not actually running for president, mind you, but it is difficult for the population at large to separate the two.  And he is larger than life; he throws a long shadow.  I would hope the former president would start being as careful of his wife's campaign as he was of his own - if not for her sake, or ours, at least for the sake of his own legacy, which has admittedly been tarnished of late.

And then there is Hillary's staff.  Whoever suggested she use the word "obliterate" on air should be fired.  The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, and the idea of preemptive threat (as opposed to preemptive war) is well-established as both acceptable and tenable.  Couching it in such, forgive the pun, explosive terms, however, is not. 

Senator Clinton went on, of course, to explain her position in detail (via TalkLeft, with worthy commentary), but the detailed, cogent, viable explanation doesn't make for the headlines "obliterated" does.  This is campaign 101 - don't let the soundbite overpower the actual message.  It should enhance and entrance, not smash and grab.

I still hope to be able to vote for Hillary in the general, but such mistakes make this more difficult than it ever needed to be, particularly given the proclivity of certain segments of our population to always assume the worst of any Clinton, irrespective of anything as niggling as facts.