How Dare She?

Four more years of this? The Democrats need a real candidate, now.

The Giffords' Tucson Shooting: Garden Variety Male Violence?

Teen-aged boys and young men become enraged when they don’t enjoy the power and control over their lives that is the birthright of men, especially white men, in our culture. … Congresswoman Giffords had committed the status offense of being a powerful woman, and the powerless Loughner needed to punish her.

By Lisa Nuss

USA Today marked the anniversary of the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and many bystanders, last week with a headline that read, “Tragedy Beyond Words.”

I have words. Four words precisely. I’ve been holding onto these four words over the year since the madman shot Congresswoman Giffords in the face in Tucson: Male Violence Against Women. I presumed the issue would surface. I waited… and waited. I’ve yet to find one major media outlet to mention, let alone consider, that what has been labeled a “senseless” act of violence actually fits an all too-familiar pattern: frustrated male entitlement attempting to reassert itself by punishing female encroachers.

Male violence against women is not my specialty, so I don’t have all of the data at my fingertips. But I live in this culture and I read the newspaper – one would have to deliberately ignore the periodic reports not to know this is an essential feature of our culture. How could you not know that at least 20% of women will be the victim of male violence – that’s 1 in 5; many estimates are as high as 1 in 4, or 1 in 3. And for those who are experts – who run national women’s organizations, or who are journalists in these fields – how can you not have analyzed this dynamic of the Arizona shooting?

Why Smart Women Marry Cads

Rather than label these women as passive victims of their husbands' foolish actions, we need to look at what the women expected to gain from their curious marriage bargains.

By Lisa Nuss

Written July 2011 -- The spring headlines veered from news of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s harem, to John Edwards’ cover-up of his affair and lovechild, to Anthony Weiner exposing his private parts to girls and women around the country. In all three cases, early public opinion was swayed by the fact that each man had secured a strong and smart woman by his side.

 Midway through Congressman Weiner’s scandal, even as more tawdry photos leaked, Barbara Walters suggested that because his accomplished wife, Huma Abedin, was sticking by Weiner, so should voters. On The View, Walters suggested that if his impressive wife didn’t think it was a big deal, then neither should we. On what basis should we let her bad choices affect our good judgment? Most of us smelled a rat from the start, and if Huma, however beautiful and smart, chose to plug her nose – it’s less a statement about his character than hers.

Let’s not forget that on the eve of Schwarzenegger’s 2003 gubernatorial election, Maria Shriver publicly vouched for her husband’s integrity. After dozens of women from Arnold’s past came forward alleging his sexual groping habits, Maria helped him win by staking her credibility against Arnold’s accusers. Then Maria went back to the cozy home she shared with her husband and children, and the mother of his secret love child.

Being successful does not mean women necessarily make smart choices about men – in these three cases, it seems that the super smart are even more capable of self-delusion. It’s worth asking, in this day and age, why do smart women put up with cads?

A curious bargain

Plenty of successful women choose to remain independent, such as the bachelorly Edie Falco and Diane Keaton. Many alpha women who choose to marry, like Ann Curry and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, select easy-going beta males who seem fine letting their wives have the limelight. Women today have a lot of choices – whether to marry, when to marry, whom to marry. I grew up in the 1970s in a progressive family, in a lower-middle class neighborhood of egalitarian state workers and teachers. I thought the days of women coddling powerful men had been eradicated, like small pox.

Yet Maria Shriver, Elizabeth Edwards and Huma Abedin each made the deliberate choice to lend their good name and loyalty to ambitious men who wore their arrogance on their sleeves.

Why is Michelle Obama Channeling Jackie O?

Written for Women’s eNews website

During Barbara Walters' interview with Michelle Obama last month, I never heard Walters say why she chose the first lady as the most fascinating person of the year.

I dug up the transcript, watched the video and confirmed that Walters never said why.

Michelle Obama did a lot that was fascinating before 2009. After bootstrapping her way to an elite college and law school where she was outspoken about racism, she left corporate law for high-profile policy work in politics and health care and won a powerful corporate board position. All the while she battled her husband to pick up his slack on the parenting and insisted on her own demanding career after his election to the U.S. Senate.

She told Vogue in 2007, "The days I stay home with my kids without going out, I start to get ill." She said she loved her work challenges "that have nothing to do with my husband and children."

Am I the only one who misses that formidable woman? She began slipping from public view during the primary when her negative ratings--spurred by media portrayals of her as angry and vehement--threatened Barack's campaign. She has yet to re-emerge.

She was nowhere to be seen during her national interview with Walters. It was as if the opinionated Michelle has been packed away somewhere in the China Room, a la "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Identity Reshaped

The woman in her place now insists that mothering is her only priority and her career was never a big part of her identity. She told Time Magazine in June, "I don't want to have a say" in national issues. Her standard stump speech now includes a line that she's lucky her husband handles all the "hard" stuff.

Why is such a powerful woman now mimicking Jackie O, who dumbed herself down for the media and trained her voice into a whisper? It could be a defensive ploy against a media and public ready to jump on any opinion she utters. My guess is it's more likely an offensive power play of her own, one I've seen many of my peers execute--retreating into the safety of female stereotypes for public consumption while finding outlets for their ambitions behind the scenes.

More on Michelle Obama

I wanted to share some of the authors who influenced my piece above, "Why is Michelle Obama channeling Jackie O?" I had to cut references to most of them due to the publisher's word count limit. 

The term "social sanctions" came from "Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide," by economist Linda Babcock and writer Sara Laschever.  They caution that women who are simply self-confident can be punished by “outright hostility and censure.”  The authors state what should be obvious by now, that “fear of these penalties makes many women hesitate to pursue their goals too directly.”   

They note the area of "social sanctions" has been little studied - but most of us in the corporate world have been unwitting subjects.  Women who don't defer are treated with all the subtlety of Whack-a-Mole, that old Santa Cruz Boardwalk game.

 

In "The Feminine Mistake," Vanity Fair writer Leslie Bennetts addresses the problem of highly educated or driven women who pretend they've lost their ambition and instead devote themselves to their husband's ambitions because "it's just easier." I'm badly paraphrasing, but with deft handling, Bennetts lets the reader wonder whether these women bear some responsibility for how their actions affect all women. Recently, I read a Harvard admissions counselor - a woman - ask why graduate schools should continue to invest so much in women if they're not really going to pursue their careers. This was 2009- -- not 1959. 

And yet I realize not everyone's comfortable carrying the banner against sexism, so why do I care if they just give up and go home (to supervise nannies and housecleaners that actually take care of the home)? 

 

Happy New Year from the Columbia River Gorge

Happy New Year from the Columbia River Gorge. Looking at etchings from ancient Indian petroglyphs that line the gorge walls, it struck me how universal the need to communicate is. Thousands of years ago someone carved these images to tell a story. My favorite has long been She Who Watches, pictured below.

Like the fabled she in the carving, I have been watching and have much to say. Parenting an exuberant one-year old and doing work that I value makes me grateful every day, yet left little free time for 2009. But I feel the need to start etching on those walls again. I dug through my pile of clippings from the past year and pitched a piece on Michelle Obama that I hope will spur discussion. It's set to be published in the next few weeks and once it is, I can also post it here.

Obama's Demagoguery is Dangerous for Democracy

Because Oregon's elections are done by mail, I have my ballot in my hand right now. I've carefully examined all of the presidential candidates' names and thought carefully about who I think is the best choice to lead America right now. I looked at my son, knowing this election would help set in motion how his life will be lived. Without pause I voted for Ralph Nader. And I know I will sleep tonight.

As the media rushed to declare Barack Obama's campaign as historic, some other element of history came to my mind. In my political science studies, we learned about demagogues who drew crowds of supporters but in the end were shown to be shams. Early on I said to myself, Barack is a demagogue. Why does no one see this? Here's the Webster's definition:

Demagogue: A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.

In history, demagogues were successful precisely because they knew how to tap into deep emotional fears and anxieties. They were wizards at manipulation, but in the end, all revealed to be crass manipulators for their own gain. Most of Barack's claims have already proven false but the hypnotized crowds still march for him. Evidence of his reversal on most of his primary promises haven't made a dent in his popularity - which I see as proof his support isn't based on anything rational.

In the primary he took many prominent stands, defending each on grounds of his moral superiority - and this is why people said they supported him.

• He said he was for public financing and ridiculed Sen. Clinton for big spending;
• He said he was for a quick withdrawal in Iraq;
• He claimed he was deeply religious, talked glowingly about his spiritual advisor who had guided his life and his family;
• He claimed to be against FISA which would give Bush more authority to infringe on our constitutional rights;
• He said he was non-partisan (although his record showed he voted with his party more than 90% of the time);
• He was against drilling in our oil reserves;
• And more than anything else he wooed people with the claim that if he'd been in the Senate he would've voted against the Iraq war resolution. 

Now he's reversed each of those positions he took on such moral highground. The biggest of all was the war, the wrench he used brilliantly to take the primary from Sen. Clinton - yet he voted for every war resolution since coming to the Senate and is now talking about sending more women and men to die in Afghanistan and to bomb Pakistan.

But the crowds are running away with themselves now and no facts to the contrary will stop them. Their support of Barack was never rational and it can't be understood with appeal to reason. Barack's supporters tell themselves they believe in him because he will be different and better, yet he's proven to be just as craven and hypocritical as many politicians.

The Sexism of Obama's Campaign Is About Entitlement

Put a cigar in his mouth and he'd fit right in with a group of fat, old Republicans. Only - wait a minute. He's a slim, young, Democrat.

Last year, a cabbie in Manhattan with a thick accent told me, "This country isn't ready to elect a woman." I was taken aback. Sen. Hillary Clinton was riding high on her well-earned reputation as a 2-term US Senator who reached across the partisan divide for real progress. She had a double digit lead in the national polls and was raising enough money to compete as a frontrunner - things no woman has accomplished before. I thought that was all proof things had changed. She never raised the issue of her being a woman on the campaign trail - she focused on the issues so much that she was criticized as a policy wonk. That all changed when Barack won Iowa. Here was a man to put her in her place.

News analysts I previously respected - like Chris Matthews on MSNBC, editorial writers I devoured, like Bob Scheer and EJ Dionne, starting writing the most base, disrespectful language about Sen. Clinton. Words that had vanished from the media since the 1990s when the right wing talk radio nuts called her a femi-nazi.

Something about Barack's campaign has fueled this toxic stream of sexist slurs that spew from so many corners, I feel singed from their heat. It's not garden variety sexism  -- it's highly emotional, reactionary attempts to cut down a strong woman.  So many otherwise rational people have been swept into it. The nasty vulgarity on the internet, sent under cover of anonymity, is probably the most revealing. Young, liberal, college educated white men - some of Barack's key supporters - filled with such pent up rage which can only be seen as fear. Anger, psychologists say, is just a symptom of other underlying feelings. I see fear in these young men - fear of losing the power they know they still get as men in this country. This may be the younger generation's way of protesting the demise of old male privilege, which still lingers. It's more subtle now, but they're still promoted past lesser qualified women, paid more than equally qualified women... the statistics are all there. Some men object to my conflating the rest of the country's sexism with Obama's personal bigotry. I say - have you ever heard him denounce the damaging sexism put forth in his name?  It's all part and parcel of the primary fuel behind his campaign.

I met a man from Argentina last week who told me, "It would be a real injustice for this country to nominate that young man over this great woman." He went on about how this country is in denial about so many things - the fact it's a world empire, and the fact that it's afraid of a strong woman president. Why is it men from foreign countries can see what's going on here so clearly, yet so many men here are so blinded?

One of our great cultural thinkers, Professor Bell Hooks, posits that most men are disturbed by the darker sides of our culture's treatment of women,

"[b]ut they fear of letting go of the benefits. ... So they find it easier to passively support male domination even when they know in their minds and hearts that it is wrong."

When I was first pregnant, I wondered how I'd protect a daughter from the many stereotypes that diminish girls today. Now I have a beautiful son, and I wonder about something that may be much harder. How to protect him from the entitlements we bestow on boys - teaching them every day in so many little and big ways that what they say and do is more important than what girls say and do.

And so about that "sweetie" comment. It's simple -- Barack feels entitled. Entitled to belittle an accomplished news reporter. Entitled to call his wife "the boss," to laugh at how she "has to" pick up his socks. Entitled to abandon his commitment to his state as a 1st term senator and instead run all over the country running for president. Entitled to abandon his care of his two young children completely to his wife, laughing about how he never sees them. And then entitled to lecture others on the importance of families.

Put a cigar in his mouth and he'd fit right in with a group of fat, old Republicans. Only - wait a minute. He's a slim, young, Democrat. Getting away with condescending to women. Getting away with bigotry. Not only getting away with it - millions of people are eating it up. He's so caught up with himself now he didn't even congratulate Sen. Clinton on her huge West Virginia victory. Recall that the pundits excoriated Sen. Clinton for lacking humility after her South Carolina loss. Yet they praised Barack for the same behavior after his New Hampshire loss. He didn't back down to "that woman" and was praised for it. She didn't back down to a man and was punished for it. Now Barack feels entitled not to even treat her as a respected competitor. All along he's felt entitled to attack her for the very actions he takes himself - he attacks her character and yet accuses her of being "negative;" he constantly finds racism in every tiny comment she makes yet vilifies her for "playing the gender card" -- these double standards stick to strong, ambitious women and he's smug with confidence he can get away with it. 

The male media (that same group of young, liberal college-educated white men) feel entitled to tell Sen. Clinton she doesn't even have a right to run anymore and should get out of the race, even while West Virginian's gave her an overwhelming victory and told exit pollers they found Obama "untrustworthy."

And of course it's not just men. What saddens me more is the women who pile on. Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, called Sen. Clinton a "crybaby" for calling attention to the sexism. I saw this dynamic at law school. Everywhere the male professors favored the male students and dismissed the women students as emotional. The young men like Barack swaggered more and more as they swelled under their entitlement. Worse, women would go along with it and rush to criticize other women to gain favor with the alpha males. Only the women who went along would never look you in the eye.

A major tenet of my writing has been that we can't blame men anymore. Women choose to allow this to unfold. Women make up at least 50% of Democratic voters. Even if you have some legitimate reason not to like such a qualified leader like Sen. Clinton, you can at least acknowledge the bigoted hostility. You could address it rationally - but to call her a crybaby says women have a lot of internal work to do.

Professor Hooks warns that this internalized sexism remains an obstacle for women. She reminds us that in the 1970s, women used the old consciousness-raising groups to change their own inner sexist beliefs -- to confront their own sexism against other women. Somehow that crucial step has been lost, but as Hooks says, is still badly needed:

The enemy within [internalized sexism] must be transformed before we can confront the enemy outside. The threat, the enemy, is sexist thought and behavior.

For more on Obama's sexism, see my earlier blog "Obama's sexism strategy rivals Nixon's southern strategy," I've received a record number of hits for this piece in the last week.

Dee Dee Myers on the "Free-Pass Sexism" Against Hillary

So I vowed not to write anymore until my baby is born, as my midwives cautioned he hasn't "dropped" yet and the new-agey San Francisco theory would be that I need to make the baby feel like his mother is ready for him (as opposed to completely absorbed with this campaign). Taking steps in that direction, I have CNN on but it's muted while I play the baby calming Vivaldi. But then I saw Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton press secretary who I have followed since and know her to be about the most objective commentator I can find along the lines of Donna Brazille, and I turned up the volume.

Turns out she's blogging over at Vanity Fair and I recommend anything by her. In this piece, "The Free-Pass Sexism of the Hillary Hate Brigade," she echoes a frequent point of mine -- that the sexism by the media and Barack and his supporters is so rampant that people seem to have forgotten it's not okay. The media and Barack and his supporters strain to defend Barack from the tiniest imagined insults while they can and do fling anything they want at Hillary.
Myers writes:

But what keeps me awake at night is the fact that in 2008, the press, the pundits, and her political opponents can still say almost anything about Hillary Clinton without penalty.

And the fact that no one ever raises this issue - leading even someone like Myers to wonder, like I have, if we're the only ones seeing this. I can only add that Barack's constant sexist attacks and crying racism while he's benefitting from sexism shows that he not only lacks integrity or character, but he's become a dangerous, divisive persona. He wields his weapon of demagoguery so recklessly now, knowing that dark, rank prejudices against powerful women are putting such an unqualified male candidate so close to the presidency. Myers made a point tonight that I made on one of my earliest Obama pieces (Who Does Barack Obama Think He Is?), that "a woman with Barack's resume would have difficulty being taken seriously."

And anytime a woman says any of this, the columnists line up to excoriate the "victim feminists." All I ask for, and I would venture all Myers asks for, is a fair fight. Let's take racism AND sexism BOTH off the table. But then where would Barack be?

Even the feminist apologist Maureen Dowd, who like the alpha females at my law school polices feminism with harsher tones (dare I say brittle) than the alpha males, pointed out in a recent column that yes, maybe, there is some sexism afoot in our media culture. (For Dowd, a major concession.) But, she went on to write, that's not Hillary's problem - Hillary's problems are unique to Hillary and brought on my herself. I have six books within reach on my bookshelf documenting that the treatment Hillary is getting is identical to the treatment every woman politician for the last century has received. But our major so-called liberal media outlets - CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times - continue to ignore this academic evidence and history in their so-called news reports, let alone in their opinion pieces.

Note:

If anyone doubts how personally Chris Matthews' animosity is against Hillary Clinton, see this video of him shouting at Dee Dee Myers because she wouldn't agree with one of Chris' opinions about Hillary. Beyond unethical journalism, it shows Chris is highly emotional about Hillary Clinton, which I've long pointed out by his sexist remarks like mocking her daring to wear pantsuits in the US Senate - which, by the way, is pretty much the uniform of the US Senate. If he gets apopletic about a woman "daring" to wear pants in the 21st Century, then how must he feel about a woman "daring" to run for president? Chris is so emotional about protecting the all boys' clubhouse that I can't watch him anymore and continue to be astounded that MSNBC won't take him off the air. I say ship him over to Fox and let him double team with the likes of O'Reilly.

Posted February 25, 2008

Obama's Sexism Strategy Rivals Nixon's Southern Strategy

According to an ABC News Report, earlier this month at Tulane University, Barack Obama made this sexist remark about Sen. Hillary Clinton:

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said. Barack's disrespect of Sen. Clinton sinks lower every day.

And then Friday there comes more. Sen. Clinton pointed out that Barack watered down a bill regulating the nuclear industry after being approached by lobbyists for the industry. A radio program verified the accusation. But Barack doesn't even bother answering the true charge - he just decides to paint Clinton as an emotional woman:

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters.

As I've written before, I was in law school for three years with young men like Barack. The sexist slurs rampant through Barack's language are taught and encouraged in young men in the elite law schools. Don't even bother responding to her claims; just mock and dismiss her as an emotional woman. I'm working on a memoir about the phenomenon now. He did the same thing during that contentious debate when Sen. Clinton merely repeated Economist Paul Krugman's challenge of Barack's praising Ronald Reagan. The Krugman column said,

the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown

Sen. Clinton repeated Krugman's words, referencing Obama's praise for Reagan and Barack just outright lied on public television and denied ever saying what he said. Sen. Clinton stared at him. She's a brilliant thinker ready to talk about issues and he responds with negative and personal attacks. He continues to dismiss her and condescend to her and then preach about how "negative" she is. Why are people falling for this? I had an opponent cheat like that in my law school moot court debates. I'd been an award-winning debater in high school and college and had him cornered; he just outright lied - made up a case out of whole cloth and was pronounced the winner. He went on to become editor of the law review. That's why this is all so familiar to me.

When will women - or men for that matter - say it's not okay for a man to be repeatedly rewarded for such base sexism? It's possible the tide may be turning. His latest attempts to refer to her as an emotional woman caused the normally non-confrontational female pundits to finally say enough. This is what the ABC reporter wrote:

According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive. Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."

Nora O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down, that she makes these kinds of attacks.' It's getting a little personal."

Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being 'down' and 'striking back,' I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?" Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."*

Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh writes that words like this, in her view, indicate "a way of thinking about women. A way of demeaning women in power; even saying we're not up to the job. Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she's depressed she broke a nail."

"Claws"…"feeling down"...I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.

I have to pause a little at the timid language of someone as accomplished as Andrea Mitchell - but these timid protests are a first in this campaign and may signal a shift.

Look up the definition of bigotry in the dictionary -- Barack's actions apply. He loves to discredit the good work and experience of Sen. Clinton while she was First Lady for eight years because she was "just a wife." People around the world still talk about Sen. Clinton's stirring speech to the Beijing Conference and her powerful declaration that "women's rights are human rights." But Barack is comfortable discrediting this accomplishment because she was merely a "wife" of a president at the time. Never mind that she graduated from a better law school than he did (Yale is far smaller and harder to get into than Harvard, one of the biggest of the Top 20 law schools). Hillary had an accomplished career of promoting social change long before that moment. He wipes away all of her accomplishments because she was a "wife."

This is how Barack dismisses Sen. Clinton's important efforts to reform health care back when no one else would take it on: "Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done."

Sen. Clinton took on health care reform in the 1990s with the same belief as Barack holds now, that it could be accomplished in a bi-partisan way. The history is clear that the special interests slaughtered the proposal with millions of dollars in scare-oriented TV ads, and even Democrats turned on the Clinton proposal because of their heavy connections to the special interests involved. By 1993 it was clear the Gingrich attack machine was in full bore and the Republicans would sweep the 1994 mid-term elections, so there was no longer motivation to support the Clinton proposal.

These events had nothing to do with Sen. Clinton personally - but Barack specializes in personal attacks on Clinton's character. That's how we cut powerful women to size. There's no "change" in that. That's old-fashioned sexism and disrespect for women. "Hollering," "petty" "just a wife," "claws come out"??? And this from the candidate whose campaign fires off four-page emails to the media trying to make everything Hillary and Bill Clinton say sound racist. The media loves it.

Tonight CNN reported that Sen. Clinton's negative statements about Barack are "confrontational." They made no comment about his sexist attacks. If she'd said the equivalent of what he'd said, it would've been the top story of the night. Instead, he attacks with impunity.

Just as Nixon knew there was racism to exploit, Barack seems invigorated by exploiting our fears of strong women. That's every bit as shameful as Nixon playing on racist fears to win the South.

Tonight Carl Bernstein criticized Sen. Clinton for "playing the gender card" by claiming misogyny which, according to him, is "nasty stuff." Blame the victim - attack her character. Last night, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a supposedly neutral commentator for MSNBC, called Sen. Clinton an "inauthentic" "calculating" "ventriloquist for her husband." We're on a full-fledged witch hunt here.

See my new blog, "Obama's Sexism, Part II - It's about entitlement"

San Francisco Loves Hillary Clinton

After uplifting gospel songs from the famous Glide Memorial Choir, and with the backdrop of a giant American flag, Sen. Hillary Clinton walked on stage last night behind an impressive line-up of Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Dolores Huerta, the legendary co-founder of the United Farm Workers' Union with Cesar Chavez.

Ron Dellums, the iconic Bay Area former Congressman, approached the podium first but the crowd wouldn't let him speak. The ovation that the standing room only Orpheum Theater lavished Sen. Clinton with was something I've never experienced before. I've been to countless political rallies in my day, including Sen. Clinton's appearance in Oakland last fall, and this reception beat any rally or rock concert I've been to. It was a powerful mixture of admiration, affection, and respect. Sen. Clinton kept waving at crowds up in the balcony (where I was) and everyone stayed on their feet clapping wildly and waving back. After Dellums and Clinton tried unsuccessfully to quiet the crowd, Dellums motioned Hillary to take another bow and she waved more and the crowd waved back.

I can only hope that thousands of people pouring out admiration for you helps to counterbalance the nastiness and personal attacks that the pundits and Barack Obama continue to firebomb at her without restraint. I can only guess that this extraordinary emotional crowd response was based on similar feelings that this admirable woman deserves better treatment and respect than she's endured.

Dellums provided a brief and passionate testament to her impressive record and integrity and then Gavin Newsom excited the crowd with a confident, "I don't know about you, but after last night's debate, I'm feeling pretty good!" Newsom introduced the celebrity draw of the night, actor and activist Ted Danson. Danson surprised me with a sobering, powerful statement, "I watched those debates last night and said that's who I want to be my president: That intelligent, sympathetic, warm, wise and beautiful woman." Then he returned to his well-known comedic side with, "I usually tell people to ignore what celebrities have to say, but tonight is different." The crowd laughed as he revealed his real purpose to introduce his wife, actress Mary Steenbergen, who apparently has been a lifelong friend of Hillary Clinton.

And Steenbergen was the surprise hit of the night - she delivered a lively speech of personal testimony of her good friend Hillary. How watching her behind the scenes back to the days of sitting around the kitchen table in the Arkansas Governor's mansion, and admiring Hillary's dedication to her work and family. Along with politically savvy comments, like when Hillary was elected to the Senate, she proved herself not to be the "partisan monster" that the right wing created and instead worked across the aisle to wide acclaim. And she recounted that Hillary's made some missteps and taken some hits, but "if she falls, she knows how to dust herself off and keep going." The crowd cheered that, and the next comment, "We don't have to wonder what she'll be like when the going gets tough."

When Sen. Clinton at last took the stage, she looked out at the crowd and offered her "overwhelming gratitude" for our support. This statement was so heartfelt and genuine that it struck me how it contrasts with Barack's growing arrogance and petulent comments that he knows he can get away with. Barack's famous ego (recently profiled in the Atlantic Monthly) provides him leeway to discredit Sen. Clinton's travels around the world and goodwill earned as First Lady because she was "just a wife." One of the daily indignities she endures, knowing men can get away with comments she can't.

Clinton delivered her usually impressive speech, which I'll highlight later in an addendum. One poignant moment in the end had her talking about Bush's abandonment of our wounded vets when they come home. I heard her talk and thought, this is the kind of person with the integrity to be the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. Barack is too young and cocky and needing to prove himself to handle that assignment with maturity. He talks often - and so does his wife Michelle - of basically abandoning care of his daughters to his wife, while he tries to be both a first-term senator and a candidate for the presidency. What would it be like to have a president and commander in chief who hasn't sloughed off responsibilities for their own family onto a spouse? That would be a first - that would be real change.

The whole night - from talking with folks in the crowd waiting in line, to the speeches, was a refreshing break from the nastiness that the media and Obama and his campaign dish out. Immediately after the LA debates in which Hillary and Barack were famously civil to each other, Obama's spokesman Axelrod was on all the cable channels dissing Clinton, attacking her performance and accusing her of being a liar. Clinton's spokesman didn't say a thing about Obama and instead just praised his candidate for her strong performance.

The crowd in line around me had thoughtful, real conversations about what's needed to be president and change the direction of our country. Together, on a sidewalk on Market Street, we had more mature political conversations than I've heard on any TV news program (save for Charlie Rose) since the Iowa caucuses. After 850,000 people gave Clinton a runaway victory in Florida, she appeared on MSNBC. Chris Matthews' first question was, "So what do you think about Sen. Kennedy endorsing Obama?" Hillary graciously noted that three of RFK's children endorsed her and "we're all pround of our sponsors," and then Matthews repeated the question again and again. Three times. His sexism rivals Don Imus' racism. Three out of his five questions for the woman who close to a million people had just supported - more people than had voted for Barack in all of the previous primaries combined - involved rubbing the Ted Kennedy endorsement in her face. That's not journalism - that's badgering.

Tellingly, the very young male reporter Patrick Healy who covers Hillary Clinton for the New York Times headlined his report of the San Francisco rally like this "Clinton Clings to Wonky Self." He described an unenthused crowd to her boring speech ("a university lecture") and his proof of its ineffectualness was that "a full minute or two would go by without applause." Obviously this young man regrets being stuck with the woman and can't report objectively about what went on around him last night. The crowd screamed and hollered and clapped throughout her entire 30-minute speech. I know - I was there. I was worried at times that the raucous support would scare my baby, 8 months in utero.

But Hillary has always taken the high road - she rarely complains about the daily indignities she endures as a powerful woman laying claim to one of the last bastions of male authority. I look forward to having my son learn from her as he grows to be an 8 year-old by the end of her second term.

Interest in black politicians doesn't extend to women

For anyone who still thinks the rush by the media and old boy Democrats' to embrace the naive and inexperienced Barack Obama is wholly about new found racial equality and not partly due to sexist resistance to a powerful female candidate, consider the New York Times analysis yesterday contrasting Barack Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's in 1984, "Separated by a Quarter Century of Change, but Linked by Race." There is no mention, no mention at all, of former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun's run for the Democratic nomination in 2004. Braun was far more qualified than Barack and just as persuasive a speaker, but the media and old boys ignored her then and ignore her now. Nor was there reference to Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm's
exciting and groundbreaking run in 1972. Chisholm was the first African American candidate from a major political party - woman or man. Black women politicians don't appear anywhere in the NYT analysis of how our attitudes about black presidential candidates have changed. That tells me our attitudes and fears of powerful women haven't changed.

The Media's Hillary Hostility

An earlier version of this piece, titled "Dumb & Dumber," is posted at London's Guardian Unlimited website.

After Senator Hillary Clinton’s historic victory in New Hampshire Tuesday, MSBNC’s Chris Matthews said the “question of the night” was “Why didn’t Barack Obama win?” Matthews was wrong. The question wasn’t why didn’t Barack win, but what kind of hysteria took hold of the mostly male media pundits after Iowa.

The unanimity of the pundits’ hysteria for Obama and distortion of the impact of Iowa was met with the same eerie silence as the wholescale pass U.S. journalists gave to the Bush administration’s lies leading up to the Iraq War. We know that before the war, the media cowered from investigative reporting and objective analysis because they feared the roving Rove machine back then that discredited journalists as liberal sissies if they challenged anything. The question today is, what are they afraid of now? What caused all major media outlets to abandon anything resembling objective coverage?

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer never once acknowledged Tuesday night that New Hampshire was a historic victory for women, and instead obsessed about “what went wrong.” He said that “scholars will be studying this for a long time.” I don’t think it will take that long; I have a few ideas right now.

Exuberance of Little Leaguers Who Needed a Win For Their Team
The disconnect in their coverage was obvious and striking but the pundits couldn’t see it. That tells me it stems from emotional reaction, not rational analysis. On Thursday night after Obama’s Iowa win, the pundits couldn’t conceal their glee. Their exuberance Thursday was as boastful as Little Leaguers who scored an upset early round win over a bigger opponent.

The mood and tone of the coverage after Clinton’s win Tuesday night was glaringly different. Now the pundits all acted like an over-hyped Little League team that had their come-uppance by losing a round.

The thing is – the media aren’t supposed to be on a team. But they obviously feel they’re on Barack’s team. They’re almost exclusively white men, he’s half black. Was this really a new found interest in social equality? If so, then why didn’t they feel a part of Sen. Clinton’s team? Why didn’t they root for her historic victory in New Hampshire?
The bottom line is the male pundits just plain felt good about themselves Thursday – they were giddy, slap happy. They weren’t supporting Obama because he’s half black; they were excited about him because he appears to be the only man left standing who can challenge Sen. Clinton’s dominance. It’s sort of like people who love to hate the Yankees. Their sheer dominance is impressive and intimidating. Barack was the one who didn’t let the strong woman beat him. And the male pundits were ecstatic.

Tuesday night, MSNBC’s Scarborough angrily defended the pundits’ misplaced Obama fanaticism by saying, “It’s like when the Yankees were up 3-0 in the 2004 play-offs. No one could foresee that Boston would come back and win four in a row.” This is what happens when journalists have an emotional stake in the outcome: the complete inability to see themselves. Obama had won one race – he was up 1-0, not 3-0. The male pundits rush to overstate Obama’s Iowa win was so much wishful thinking that last night they still couldn’t see their own misjudgment. Iowa doesn’t predict the democratic nomination with any more certainty than a 1st round victory in the League Championships predicts who will win the World Series.

New found interest in racial equality belies old found sexism
The pundits new found interest in social progress proved to be short-lived. Thursday and in the days after Iowa, the media spun on itself until it was dizzy that everything’s different now, how exciting it is that people are demanding change, and Barack being half black is the only one who can really bring change.

Sen. Clinton herself had to remind people over the weekend that electing a woman president would also bring change. New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor also reminded readers in its endorsement of Clinton that achieving equality for women is a slow and uneven process in this country: a wage gap persists for women, reproductive freedom is constantly at risk. After listing her impressive credentials and experience, the editorial board wrote, “The election of the first female president will show more than half the population… that their futures are not limited by gender.”

Yet hours into the analysis of the New Hampshire results, not one TV station mentioned Sen. Clinton’s win was the first time a woman had won a major party’s presidential primary. This historic victory for women - half the population of our country – went completely unnoticed.

On Thursday, they marveled over Barack’s “historic moment” while seemingly unaware that Jesse Jackson won many state primaries 20 years ago in 1988. Barack’s win wasn’t remarkable or historic for his race. The mostly white, male pundits weren’t elated at thinking Barack’s Iowa victory meant voters were ready to elect a black man; they were thrilled that Clinton’s Iowa loss confirmed that voters might still not be ready to vote for a woman.

After Iowa, no mention of sexism; After New Hampshire, racism seen everywhere
After Obama’s upset win in Iowa, no pundit suggested he might be reaping a windfall from sexism. No one even considered whether voters going into the public caucuses who liked Clinton might have been pressured to change their vote. Yet Tuesday evening, no less than three male pundits claimed that Obama was the victim of racism in New Hampshire.

This time a rare female pundit was at the table and disagreed. Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation, interrupted the racist claims to point out that men overwhelmingly supported Obama in Iowa and the difference in New Hampshire was that women favored Clinton by similar margins. Exit polls showed that sexism was neutralized in New Hampshire with women and men equally favoring their sex, and that Sen. Clinton won on experience and ability to improve the economy.

Barack is all good; Sen. Clinton is all bad
New Hampshire exit polls showed that voters who cared about experience, and the economy and worsening financial conditions voted for Sen. Clinton; the pundits spent the evening puzzling over “what went wrong.” What, exactly, was “wrong” about people favoring the more experienced candidate, with a seven year record of working with both sides of the aisle in Congress, who built a career making social change and up until Iowa had lead national polls by over 20%?

After Barack’s win Thursday, the pundits couldn’t praise him enough. In the frenzy building from Iowa they ignored his meager resume and instead whipped him up into some kind of wizard with a magical ability to lead. The same unexamined nonsense showed up in no less than the Boston Globe’s endorsement of Obama. The Globe declared that because Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, meant he had superior ability to deal with diverse cultures than Sen. Clinton. That the Globe would elevate living in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10 years of age into some kind of ability to lead the free world is staggering. Sen. Clinton has served on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee and for eight years as First Lady traveled the world meeting with foreign leaders – as an adult. Yet the Globe gave Obama the nod in ability to lead in foreign policy, making the fantastical claim that he has an “intuitive sense of the wider world.”

The rare pundit who acknowledged the impressive Sen. Clinton might have earned the New Hampshire victory or that Barack might have some weaknesses were three very partisan Republicans. It’s easier for them to be objective because they’re not faced with a woman leading their party. Bill Bennett, of all people, complimented her handling of the campaign and the fact you can never count the Clinton’s out because they know what they’re doing. David Brooks, the conservative columnist, said plainly Tuesday that after being trounced by voters who wanted experience, Barack needs to “open up his resume.”

Barack’s Establishment Style Spending Overlooked
As their hysteria built Thursday after the Iowa win, the pundits raved over Obama’s “grassroots” appeal; this was a “genuine grassroots victory”; this was a “repudiation of the Clinton political machine” and a “return to authentic politics.” No one mentioned that Barack outspent all of the other democrats by 2 to 1 on TV ads. He’d spent $4 million on commercials compared to Clinton’s $2 million, and targeted them heavily in Iowa. That’s not grassroots – that’s cold, hard cash. That’s politics as usual. Edwards didn’t have that kind of cash and neither did Dean in 2004. Barack had the luxury of adding the youth vote to the larger vote bought with establishment money. Big money he raised with the help of democratic old boys who recruited him to challenge the formidable Hillary Clinton.

Pundits give Barack Free Pass on Ethical Problems
The media basically gives Barack a free pass on his numerous ethical problems. He lied during the Saturday debate when he denied that his New Hampshire chair was a pharmaceutical lobbyist (he is); he distorts Sen. Clinton’s record constantly; his campaign accused her of causing the Bhutto assassination; his campaign is run by old pols who try to plant all the same dirt stories that the others campaigns do; he’s taken money from a shady Chicago contractor now under indictment. But over the weekend he was lionized for being different than other politicians, above petty politics, having the kind of fresh integrity that voters hunger for.

Ignoring Sen. Clinton’s lifetime devoted to social change
If it’s true that Sen. Clinton’s momentary emotional moment swayed some voters in New Hampshire, then it’s about time. This is a woman who’s devoted her life and passion to social change – who made such an impressive declaration for women’s rights at the UN Conference on Women in 1995 that it’s still spoken of around the world – and yet she is scorned as cold and self-serving. Carl Bernstein noted Tuesday that his book, “A Woman in Charge,” catalogs her impressive career and passion for helping people. Yet a very young man who spent a few years as a community organizer and state legislator essentially abandoned his Senate position after one year in his ambitions to be president, and is worshipped as egoless and guileless and the authentic promoter of change she somehow isn’t. I don’t blame her for getting emotional – the exhaustion on top of the constant vilification. All women should thank her for shouldering the endless double standards in such a dignified manner.

* * *
During Saturday’s debates, all candidates from both parties shared a moment together on stage. There stood one lone woman among nine men, when women comprise 50% of the population. Yet the media won’t acknowledge it, or consider the obvious implication that our culture still has issues about women in power. Even the so-called liberal New York Times rang in the New Year by again, in 2008, borrowing a Chris Matthews line and mocking Sen. Clinton for daring to wear pants. The nerve of it all.

Two unusual admissions late Tuesday were lights on an otherwise dark evening for our media’s reputation. On his program, Charlie Rose asked what no one on CNN or MSNBC had asked: “Is there anything to the claims that the male media trounced on Clinton unfairly that New Hampshire voters may have fired back?” Mark Halperin, contributor to ABC News and Time, made this comment:

“Yes, this was a dramatic upset considering the recent polls, but the polls were largely driven by what the media said was going to happen. Every news organization I’ve worked with has been more enthusiastic about Obama than Clinton. I’m for fair coverage and it hasn’t been close to equal.”

The rest of Rose’s panel erupted in protest. Steve McMahon denied any Obama bias, but admitted he was at a loss to know why they all made too much of Iowa.

The second and only other remotely objective comment came from MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan, the former right wing politician whose a very good analyst. He said very plainly that the women of New Hampshire resented the media anointing a male messiah and presenting him as a done deal.

On Tuesday night, the hang dog pundits, acting like defeated 12 year-old Little Leaguers, couldn’t muster anything positive to say about Sen. Clinton’s impressive record. CNN’s first comment after airing Sen. Clinton’s victory speech was Lou Dobb’s, “She’s not supposed to be there.” CNN wrapped up its coverage Tuesday night with Wolf Blitzer and four other male pundits standing around staring forlornly at each other. None could bring themselves to announce or celebrate this historic victory for women, this historic moment of change. They couldn’t fathom one reason why anyone would want to vote for her; in the post-Iowa hysteria they’d kicked her so far to the curb they were sure they finished the job. But they seriously underestimated her tremendous appeal. She is formidable precisely because she’s so talented and experienced. Just like the Yankees.

The Economist Says Obama may be "All Hat and No Cattle"

Barack Obama's grand unveiling of his foreign policy platform suggests he is not yet willing to move away from mind-numbing platitudes. Here's a snippet from his supposedly major foreign policy speech : "The American moment has not passed. The American moment is here. And like generations before us, we will seize that moment and begin the world anew."

I referred to Barack as a political "neophtye" in an earlier column and the Obama-apologists (as Daily Kos refers to them) deluged me with outrage. If they won't take the judgment of a political veteran, maybe they'll be sobered by the venerable Economist Magazine. In its April 14 issue, the magazine wrote "Obama is a neophyte by comparison" to Sen. Hillary Clinton's political experience and knowledge. The article points out that Barack is capable of hiring advisors to school him on policy details, but wonders why he showed up at a health care forum in Las Vegas with not much more than "empty waffle." I couldn't agree more.

The fact that no less than The Economist is calling this overly ambitious young man to task tells me this is a guy whose getting too big for his britches. The magazine finds Barack's "policy-related" messages in the Audacity memoir "scattershot and banal." The article is titled "Where's the beef?" and concludes that despite an ability to fundraise, Barack needs to prove "that he is more than just a sweet-talking idealist."

The Economist predicts that while Barack can be an impressive speaker, Sen. Clinton is still way ahead in the polls and will most likely be the Democratic candidate:

The Democratic Party has a long history of anti-establishment candidates, such as Eugene McCarthy and Gary Hart, who surged to prominence on talk of 'new politics' only to collapse in confusion.

So far Barack's "new politics" is just talk. And as the Economist notes, he's certain to face the charge soon that he's "all hat and no cattle."

Note to Readers: The Huffington Post declined to run this post, citing "editorial prerogative." I asked why, because the Post regularly publishes blog/rants from men who are unnerved by Hillary Clinton's ambition. They also turned down the piece I wrote below making fun of John Edwards' hair. They didn't give a reason that time, which was my first post they didn't accept. They said they have "journalistic standards" like all media, yet that same week they posted three blogs ranting about how fat and rude they think Rosie O'Donnell is. I told the Post that due to their editorial bent I am declining to send further posts. This is disappointing, and I wonder whether Ariana Huffington herself is aware of editors' choices.

One of my readers commented:

Sorry to hear this, though not suprised. I'd quit reading Huffington Post a while ago just because of the progressive sexism proudly displayed there. I popped over once in a while to see if I could find your articles, but never could seem to. The rest of it was just too irritating to deal with.

The Blonding of Women Lawyers

Our foremothers fought long and hard so women could be taken seriously. So why, when I opened my New York Times this morning, did I see the image of an attorney on the front page, whose hair was dyed blonde to make her look like what we used to call "blonde bimbos." I wrote an essay some years back on this topic for Skirt Magazine.

I first noticed this trend among women lawyers back in 1992 when I arrived late to Torts class and sat up in the back. My eyes scanned down over my classmates and I was struck by all the dark roots. And all the dyed blonde heads. This was before the rest of the country went blonde. Back when women professionals used to arrive at work fully clothed. Now, 15 years later, it's hard to find a woman in a law firm that doesn't have a see-through blouse unbuttoned to her bra-line, short skirts, bare legs and brightly painted toes stuffed into stiletto heels. Watching women walk around law firms these days is like watching re-runs of the Loveboat. What happened?

Please don't start me on the whole, "Women should stop trying to be like men," nonsense. For the last time, pants are not male and neither are shoulder pads. Shoulder pads are placed in men's jackets to make their shoulders look broader and to make them look more powerful. Why are we afraid of women looking powerful is the question we should be asking.

Meanwhile, these women show up, half-naked and dressed like prostitutes, and insist on being treated exactly the same as the men and paid the same as the men. I don't blame men for being confused because I sure am. If I needed a lawyer and one showed up with chemicals all over her head and couldn't be bothered to wear some kind of stockings or socks or put a jacket on, and a man showed up well-groomed with his normal hair color and a buttoned up shirt - and socks! - I'd hire him in a heartbeat, because clearly he shows better judgment.

If I learned anything during the two years I lived in a college sorority (yes, it's true), it's that women dress like their mothers and date men like their fathers. Thank you, Mom, for setting a standard for dressing professionally, stylishly and with some dignity. And I'll thank you again, silently, next time I get in the elevator with one of the young women in my building carrying a briefcase and trying to tug down the shirt that doesn't fully cover her stomach, exposing her red thong underwear to the world.

Jump in Barack - There's Room for Everyone in the Pool of Humanity

(Cross-posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-nuss/)

Where's the high-minded rhetoric now from Mr. "things are going to be different," "I'm above the fray" Obama?

The New York Times reports Senator Obama bought about $100,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

Obama's tortured explanation the next day brings to mind the pat explanation Martha Stewart and her broker contrived to cover up their poor choices.

Obama claims not to have known that he was investing in a company developing a drug to combat Avian Flu at the very moment he introduced a bill to increase federal funding for drugs to combat Avian Flu. That's a freakish coincidence, if we're to believe him. How many senators introduced bills to increase funding for drugs to combat the Avian Flu in 2005? Being a policy wonk at heart, I checked over at Thomas.gov and found exactly two. That's 2/100 senators or 2%.

If Obama really is the unwitting victim of this unbelievable freakish coincidence, he was certainly asleep at the switch over perceptions.

Some people say this is a lot of fuss over nothing. I say, if you campaign on a "more ethical than thou" platform, then you better button up your actions - perceived or otherwise. In his announcement speech, Obama admits his "audacity" to run with little experience, and bases his whole platform on "the ways of Washington must change."

I also say if you compare yourself to President Abraham Lincoln no less than four times in that same announcement speech, you invite comparisons. I wonder if Honest Abe would've gotten involved with a shady contributor/developer while he was being indicted for corruption and fraud charges. The Chicago Tribune reported the details of those deals with Tony Rezko last November. The senator whose website states "Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has fought for open and honest government" was shoring up his contributor, friend and next-door neighbor while he was being indicted for corruption, kickbacks and fraud to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in obtaining public contracts.

Again, Obama would have us believe he was innocent. He admitted to paying Rezko's legal and landscaping bills during the time he was being indicted and ran out of money, but Obama assures us he meant to seek reimbursement, but "I just haven't had time to do it." Obama admits to paying Rezko $60,000 over the appraised price of property he bought from Rezko, who lived next door, but says he did it because he thought the lower, appraised price, "wasn't fair." Our Sen. Obama is either lying or a really, really bad business man. Neither bode well for his high-handed ethical claims. Nor his judgment.

And now Obama is trying to distance himself from his friend and neighbor. In the Tribune article, Obama "doesn't recall" exactly how Rezko came to buy the property adjacent to his, and close on the same day. "I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I'm not clear about that."

Another freakish coincidence. And just like President Bush tried to recast his ol' buddy Ken Lay as a remote acquaintance after Lay's indictment for defrauding investors and the public in the Enron scandal, Obama is now counting the times he and his wife had dinner with Rezko and his wife: "two to four times, in the time that I've known him." He apparently liked him enough to make him his next door neighbor - oops, I forgot, Obama "doesn't recall" how that came about.

If people out there still want to believe he's completely innocent in all of this, I hope they'd expect that if he's going to campaign on the moral high ground he better watch his step. But the thing is, nobody's above temptations. Shady dealmakers like Rezko are as old as politics. More than a few politicians have met their downfall after succumbing to their slick temptations. What's always concerned me about Obama is his continued belief that he is somehow more ethical than others, somehow more able to resist those old Washington ways. After the Rezko revelations in the Chicago Tribune, Obama was still beating his "more ethical than thou" drum: "I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the 10 years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards." (See "Obama: Rezko dealings 'a mistake'")

Back to Obama's self-comparisons to President Lincoln. I doubt that Lincoln, in his early 40s, would've bought an ostentatious $1.6 million dollar home that, according to the Chicago Tribune, has four fireplaces, Honduran mahogany bookcases, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar. Those aren't humble digs. I'm continually amazed at the people who think Obama is just a nice, sweet guy who happened into national politics. You don't "happen" into Harvard Law School. I know - it takes ambition and a competitive nature beyond all normal bounds to win admission to the top schools. And you certainly don't "happen" to the editorship of the law review if you haven't become a master at telling people things they want to hear.

The sprawling and grandiose home purchased during his first year as a U.S. Senator belies extreme ambitions, indeed. I continue to predict such ambition coupled with a belief he is above the fray will be his downfall. A very old story, just like the typical ways of Washington.

Women's integrity as bargaining chip

(Cross-posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-nuss/)

I understand that politicians flip flop. They change positions and pander for votes and money. I've worked for Democrats and Republicans and confess to nuancing an issue or two in my day. But Rudy Giuliani's crass pandering of my bodily integrity is not nuancing.

The New York Times' headline "Giuliani shifts abortion speech gently to the right" misses the mark. It's not as if deciding that women should be forced to bear unwanted children is comparable to softening his stance on the estate tax or funding for highways. When are women going to stop putting up with having our bodies put on the bargaining table every election cycle? Or men, for that matter, since even with technological advances it still takes a woman and a man to make an unwanted pregnancy.

There's no way this turnabout can be passed off as a position of principle. It's about as transparent as Mitt Romney's decision to join the National Rifle Association last August. And Romney's "shifted" on abortion rights as well. He could really win over the right if he started packing heat around Planned Parenthood clinics scaring away women trying to make healthy family planning choices.

For some reason Giuliani's reversal bothers me more than Romney's. Giuliani had authentic moderate appeal. Widely known as a pro-choice, socially liberal Republican, you knew - or thought you knew - that he wasn't going to do anything crazy on the liberal or conservative side. After six years of leadership that trumped up wars and racked up record deficits, Rudy wasn't such an ideologue that he would take the country down any dark alleys. But now, he's willing to send women and girls back down those alleys.

The history of abortion regulation in the U.S. is fascinating. I had the opportunity to study original documents relating to abortion laws at the Library of Congress, during a college internship in Washington, D.C. I read transcripts from state legislature floor debates in the early 1800s, newspaper articles and medical journals. One thing I know for sure, those debates were rarely about the fetus. They were often about politics and power but mostly about the role of women. In the definitive book on the subject, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, Professor Kristin Luker traces this history, showing how abortion used to be allowed - even promoted - for single women, how it was restricted for married women after the Catholic immigrants threatened to outnumber the Protestants, and how for hundreds of years in common law and the Catholic Church, early abortion was legal until the time of "quickening" (around the second trimester). My Catholic friends are always surprised to learn the Church sanctioned early abortions for about six hundred years until Pope Pius and a group of hooded men issued some sort of edict in 1869.

Giuliani's smart enough to know all of this but he obviously doesn't give a hoot. His pandering includes a newfound desire to promote "strict constructionist" judges to the federal judiciary, which is code for judges against abortion. Strict constructionism holds that judges must interpret the U.S. Constitution as the original framers intended. The conservatives argue that the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, based on the right of privacy, is not in the original Constitution. Technically, that's correct. However, abortion was legal at the time the Constitution was written and strict construction also holds that since the framers were silent on the topic of abortion, their intention was to uphold the status quo.

The whole strict construction argument is a red herring. The right to privacy does emanate from Constitutional protections, and there are many alternative legal theories in which to ground protection from restrictive abortion laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The final straw in Giuliani's blithe about face on settled Constitutional protections is his statement that “I have a very, very strong view that …. Judges have to interpret, not invent the Constitution.” Saying that judges should "interpret, not invent" the Constitution is neo-con speak for judges who oppose abortion, along with countless other individual liberties. There is rarely one "right answer" when interpreting difficult Constitutional questions, and it's dangerous for the right to foment the myth that any judge who doesn't agree with them is "inventing the law." What is Giuliani, a former respected prosecutor, doing wallowing with that brigade?

Giuliani chose an interview with the conservative Fox Channel's Sean Hannity to undertake to preach to women about ending unwanted pregnancies: “I hate it…. As a personal matter, I would advise somebody against it.” Rudy Giuliani would advise women on their personal life choices. Interesting. This comes from a Catholic on his third marriage. After swearing out an annulment on the first 14-year marriage claiming he'd just "discovered" his wife was a second cousin, he notified his second wife via a public press conference that he wanted a divorce, in part because he was having an affair, while they had small children at home.

There's a great scene in the movie Miss Potter where Renee Zellwegger, playing the illustrator Beatrix Potter, grows impatient with a publisher who doesn't take her books seriously and patronizes her attempt to have a career. Zellwegger interrupts him mid-sentence to say, "I have grown quite unaccustomed to being lectured to by men."
Then she turns firmly and walks away.

It's time for women, and enlightened men, to turn firmly and walk away from politicians like Giuliani.

Resources:
Facts and statistics on abortion: The Guttmacher Institute
Religious groups for choice: Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Catholics for a Free Choice
Legal: Center for Reproductive Rights; National Women's Law Center
Get involved: National Abortion Rights Action League
Donate: Planned Parenthood

See 1989 statement from Giuliani affirming the importance of the right to choose: "There must be public funding for abortions"

Who Does Barack Obama Think He Is?

(Written for the London Guardian: Cross-posted at the Huffington Post)

Who does he think he is? We must ask this question, because it's the kind of question that would be asked if a 45-year-old female political neophyte declared, as Barack Obama did Saturday, that she was a candidate for the U.S. presidency. In fact, the public wouldn't get the chance to ask it of a 45-year-old woman with barely two years of national political experience, because, unlike Obama, the media would never take her seriously and we would rarely, if ever, hear her name.

Some say we should celebrate the candidacy of a minority. Yes, we should. But we weren't interested in doing that when former Senator Carol Moseley Braun ran in 2004. Like Obama, Braun was launched onto the national scene with a stirring and powerful speech - in her case, to the 1992 Democratic party convention. In fact, the parallels are astonishing: she is also African-American, also graduated from an elite law school and in 1992 won election to hold the very same Senate seat that Obama now occupies. But that's where the similarities end. Braun served as a federal prosecutor before entering politics and, after a full six-year term in the Senate, she went on to serve as an ambassador. Yet, the media and political pundits never took her seriously. I recall being excited about her candidacy, only to find in every article that mentioned her an undercurrent of "who does she think she is?" At the age of 57, her campaign never caught fire.

We must ask this question, "who does he think he is?," because we asked it of an Ivy Leaguer with far greater experience and stature, Elizabeth Dole. Like Obama, Dole graduated from Harvard law school. Her confidence and presidential aspirations in the 2000 campaign were backed by cabinet-level service under two presidents: secretary of labor under President Reagan and secretary of transportation under the first President Bush. Despite her national political leadership and experience as the president of the American Red Cross, where she controlled a budget that rivals most large American corporations, we didn't think she had the stature to be president.

I am using "we" loosely: It is a combination of the public, media and political pundits. But a study by the White House Project, a non-profit organisation that promotes women's leadership, placed the refusal to take Dole seriously squarely on the media. Marie Wilson, a founder of the White House Project, documented how the media undercut Dole's authority with coverage that was less frequent and less substantial, even though Dole was number two in the polls behind George Bush. Although I'm a Democrat, I found Dole's candidacy and energy were electrifying. But, sadly, the news articles focused on her hair, her clothes and how tightly she controlled her public appearances. The tone of those articles was unmistakably belittling. You didn't have to read between the lines to know the reporter's opinion ("I mean really, who does she think she is?") After working on an incumbent's Senate campaign, I know how tightly and carefully national politicians control their image. Yet the media singled Elizabeth Dole out - and it worked. Six months later she couldn't raise enough money to be a serious contender.

We must ask this question, "who does he think he is?," because there are 14 female US senators with more demonstrated leadership and experience, one of whom is currently millions ahead in fundraising and continues to enjoy a substantial lead in the polls. If Hillary Clinton were a man, her gravitas, formidable fundraising ability and giant presence in the party would dwarf his bid. Yet the media rushes - no, tramples - to fawn over a young man with far less life experience, less national political experience and less business experience. We know very little about Obama, and yet we're ready to hand him the keys to the free world.

Self-annointed progressives rush to project all manner of leadership onto Obama's clean slate. Yes, he has a gift for communicating and has good ideas -- but that's never been enough before. I don't believe someone so utterly inexperienced in high-pressure politics and naive to the national stage would be given such attention if a woman wasn't the frontrunner. This wishful thinking is consistent with the findings of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation that voters project more experience and knowledge onto men who have the same background as women. In Obama's case, we're seeing this willingness to project in the extreme. We've had women more experienced than Obama considered unqualified to run for governor in many states. Double standards for candidate qualifications is not progress; it's very, very retro.

Finally, we must ask this question because no one in the media is concerned with who is going to represent Illinois in the Senate while Obama is out gallivanting around the country trying to be president. Remember when there were whispers that 2004 could be Sen. Clinton's "time" - her shot at the presidency? The media and pundits howled at the thought of Sen. Clinton shirking her senatorial duties: who does she think she is, winning such an important election and then tossing it aside for bigger fish? And Clinton was four years into her senate term. Obama's only two years ino his term yet no one questions the forsaking of his position for his own vainglory.

In our social system of double standards, we relieve men of stunning obligations. Having the proper credentials to serve as President of the United States shouldn't be one of them.

An earlier version of this column ran on the UK Guardian website on 1.16.07.

Johnny-come-latelys to Universal Health Care

Hillary owns health care, boys

By Lisa Nuss

Apparently Sen. Barack Obama is now the go-to man on universal health care. The male bloggers love his speech calling for universal health care and one of them commented on one of my recent posts that Sen. Hillary Clinton wasn’t progressive enough on health care but “Obama has called for universal health care.”

I’m still laughing. As I wrote to my anonymous critiquer, “Interesting that you credit Obama with thinking about universal health care when Clinton’s on very public record for having done something about it.” The critiquer is no doubt too young to remember Sen. Clinton’s crusade for universal health care as First Lady in 1993 and 1994. Now all of a sudden Clinton looks like a visionary, not a polarizer, and everyone else wants in on the action.

In his Sunday column "The growing momentum for health-care reform" David Broder noted Sen. Obama has committed to the goal of universal health care, “without saying how to get there.” Broder was being generous. I read all three ponderous pages of the Obama speech and found zero specifics on how he would solve the problem.

Obama waxing wise on how he alone has the ability to bring about universal health care is like me claiming a solution to peace in the Middle East. Sure, I studied Middle East history and politics in my graduate program, I went to a top law school, and I’ve worked for years in government. But I have no experience in the area and no feel for how players interact at that level. And, somehow, a smugness seeps through Obama's speech that suggests this is all his idea. Without anything more concrete than “I am absolutely determined,” Obama comes off like a pretty Miss America candidate calling for world peace.

Former Senator John Edwards has a little more credibility in the area. He did campaign on the “Two Americas” theme in 2004 and has a record of fighting for working class interests. But critics find his noticeable and recent shift to the left, including his repudiation of his earlier support for the Iraq War, as “nothing more than an opportunistic rebranding." And, I don’t recall that universal health care was part of the Kerry/Edwards 2004 ticket.

Back to our frontrunner. Sen. Clinton, out stumping in Iowa, has renewed her call for universal health care. Broder writes, “On her first trip to Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton showed her mastery of the subject, explaining what had gone wrong in 1994 and the lessons learned.” At a Des Moines Town Hall, Clinton noted the problems of early 1990s were still with us – and getting worse.

Polls showed the public was ready for universal health care in 1993 and Clinton bravely took it on. She ran smack into the powerful lobby interests who ultimately took her and the plan down. But this gives her the wisdom of the battle weary. She put herself on the line, something none of the other candidates has done. The exception is Kucinich, who pays the consequences of putting his progressive views on the line by being tagged as a kook.

As strong leaders will do, Sen. Clinton accepts responsibility for her fumbles in the health care debate in the early 1990s. Moreoever, unlike President Bush, she shows a keen ability to learn from her mistakes. Even to laugh at them. A few weeks ago the senator offered President Bush a “suit of armor” if he was going to plunge into the health care debate.

Now, that's someone I'd like to have a beer with.

See Paul Starr, "What Happened to Health Care Reform?" for a review of the players in 1993-94. Starr, who was an advisor to the Clintons, acknowledges mistakes within the Clinton Administration but also analyzes the Congressional power plays and other political and economic conditions that factored into the defeat of the Clinton proposal.
Starr won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the history of health care in America and is the co-editor of the American Prospect Magazine.

Is it time to talk impeachment?

Historian Howard Zinn says yes. (See story link below.) Zinn is a great thinker and a scholar of history - someone who can see, and teach, history how it actually happened instead of how it's usually rewritten to benefit those in power.

I do think Bush and Cheney's lies to the people and abuses of our legal and constitutional protections warrant taking up the question in an impeachment hearing. I haven't recently researched the grounds for impeachment, but surely their crimes are worse than Clinton's white lies about sex between consenting adults in the White House. Why is it though, that Democrats seem afraid of looking too radical for suggesting impeachment, while Republicans actually did it on far, far lesser charges?

Howard Zinn "Impeachment by the People"
See also Robert Scheer, "A case for impeachment"
On 2/6, the NYT's Nicholas Kristof called for Cheney to resign or come forward in "Mr. Cheney, Tear Down This Wall"