Contender: Amy Siskind

Outlet: The Daily Beast

Known Biases: Patron Saint of the PUMAs

Best Known for: Being Pro-Palin post-HRC

Can't Stand Stupak-Pitts because:

She feels like Obama has been selling out women since the campaign trail.

Women's love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him-while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like "sweetie" or "you're likable enough," or saw Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine's cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of "girls are inferior in math and science" fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama's off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: "I think this is bunk." That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as "the problem that has no name," "bunk" revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

Best Shot:

The sleeping giant-America's majority constituency-is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Wants to take action by:

Lesson one-we need more women in leadership roles. Women's organizations need to drop partisanship and work together to get more women into public office for both parties. Sisters, we cannot count on either party to represent our interests; we can only count on ourselves. (And when our women leaders do, on occasion, get it wrong-as Speaker Pelosi did this past weekend-we need an ample bench of women politicians surrounding her, and strong advocacy groups to steer her right).

Lesson two-with this awakening, there will be a quest to get a woman into the White House in 2012. Find us a woman leader who might have her personal beliefs, but will agree to keep them as just that, and you might just have a deal!

Contender: Kate Harding

Outlet: Salon's Broadsheet

Known Biases: Fat activism, unapologetic feminism

Best Known for: Baby flavored donuts All around awesomeness.

Best Shot:

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women — or just the staunchest pro-choicers — who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

Can't Stand Stupak Pitts because:

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old.

Wants to take action by:

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

Judge's Call: Siskind goes for body blows, but has no artistic savoir faire. All her moves are recycled. Harding plows in with passion, wearing down her opponent before trying for the TKO.

Winner: Kate Harding, for taking the long view of both problem and solution.

Loser: The Democratic Party - because when two different factions of women are calling for blood, there's going to be some drama at election time.

How Obama Sold Women Out [Daily Beast]
Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women [Salon]

Mike Stark of Firedoglake visited a Town Hall meeting in Virginia, and spoke with a man who said,

I can think of nothing worse than to have these people in here who believe in abortion raising a child. That is the scariest thing in my life.

Stark interprets this to mean "he thinks you can't be a good parent or love your kids if you are pro-choice," but that's actually somewhat generous given the next thing the guy says:

There's millions of kids killed every year, and if they weren't they'd be sitting in here saying, "give me healthcare."

His point isn't that pro-choice people can't love their kids, it's that they'll turn their kids into greedy little socialists. To him, asking for healthcare is an unreasonable, even childish demand, one so dangerous that people who would make it shouldn't reproduce. Whether or not you think a person's political views affect their parenting skills (and I'd argue that if those views include, say, homophobia, they do), making decisions about who should have kids should never be part of the debate.

A little less surprising than the Democrats-should-abort screed, but no less upsetting, in the news that a federal judge has upheld a South Dakota law that requires doctors to tell women that abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." The law requires that this and six other points of varying veracity be included in a written statement given to each pregnant woman so she can give "informed consent." To her credit, Judge Karen Schreier struck down two of the points — doctors won't be required to tell women "that the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota" or that they face "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide" if they go through with an abortion. She also ruled that doctors must use the term "human being" in "a biological sense and not an ideological one" — but it's not clear what that means.

The question of at what point a fetus becomes a human being is obviously still a contentious one, and it's not clear how telling a woman that what she's carrying is human "in a biological sense" (or whole, separate, unique, or living, the first two of which are definitely debatable) is going to make her more informed. It's not as though women think they're aborting sheep fetuses or something. Of course, the law is pretty transparent — it's not really about informing women, it's about making them feel guilty so they don't have abortions. Leslee Unruh, founder of a crisis pregnancy center in Sioux Falls that campaigned in favor of the bill, says the ruling is "a huge, fatal blow" to abortion. She adds, "This is the unraveling of Roe."

Cara of The Curvature prefers the term "Death by a Thousand Cuts" for attempts by Unruh and others to chip away at abortion rights in South Dakota. She points out another bill, SB92, which would require that abortion providers set aside two hours for each patient to discuss the procedure on the day before it is performed — even if the patient waives the consultation or doesn't show up. Since South Dakota has only one abortion clinic, which can only perform abortions once a week because providers must be flown in from out of state, the two-hour rule would likely further restrict abortion access in South Dakota. Cara believes this is intentional. The South Dakota legislature is saying, she writes,

if you want to keep providing abortions, we're going to make it a hell of a lot more expensive for you. You're going to have to take more flights. You're going to have to charge more. You're almost certainly going to have to perform abortions on more than one day every week. And we're going to waste every single second of your time that we can.

Unfortunately, that's what the "human being" explanation sounds like too — an insult to women's intelligence, and a waste of their time.

Abortion Debate Solved, Teabag Style [Firedoglake]
Both Sides Claim Victory In Ruling Over Abortion Law [AP, via NYT]
South Dakota Fails In Abortion Ban; Attempts Death By A Thousand Cuts [The Curvature]

Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist who wrote The Psychology of Humor, says that conservatives are happier than liberals in general, and therefore more prone to a good chuckle. “A conservative outlook rationalizes social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy," Martin tells the Times.

Or maybe, as Tierney posits, social scientists are a hugely liberal group and while they think they're noncomformists who are dissatisfied with the world, they're actually just as closed-minded as conservatives! "Maybe the stereotype of the dour, rigid conservative has more to do with social scientists’ groupthink and wariness of outsiders," Tierney says.

Another explanation: the jokes that researchers told the study's participants were completely lame. I mean, has anyone been entertained by a joke about golfing since the Ford administration? Either way, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike can giggle at the above picture of George W. molesting a bunny.

Obama and McCain Walk Into a Bar… [NY Times]

As one might imagine, anti-marriage equity organizations, such at the Mormon church, are blanketing the state with money and advertisements to make sure the Dreaded Gays can be denied their equal rights once again as their bigoted vision of God supposedly intended. And, if you thought money spoke louder than social justice in D.C., well, you ain't seen the latest poll numbers on Prop 8 yet — because that anti's money is screaming really fucking loudly.

Two polls in the last week — one by Lake Research and one by Survey USA — show Prop 8 winning (and equal rights losing) 47 to 43 and 47 to 42, respectively. The No on Prop 8 spokespeople believe that the unexpected results have something to do with the complacency of those who would be expected to support equality and a barrage of television ads against the measure that seem to be swaying younger voters. Although they expect the pro-discrimination groups to spend up to $26 million on television advertisements in order to foist their religious beliefs onto the populace, groups like No On Prop 8 expect to match them on advertising money and think that at least 20 percent of the electorate is either undecided or keeps changing its mind. So, a little good news on a bad news day, I guess.

On the surface, it seems so strange that a state in which the latest polls have Obama up by 16 points would be moving so quickly in the direction of inequality and intolerance. But, then, it's probably important to remember that neither Barack Obama or Joe Biden actually supports marriage equity. In fact, scroll through the issues on their site and you'll see no mention of same sex marriage rights in the sections on Civil Rights, Faith or Family. I've recently said that I think the Democratic Party should stop pandering to the forces of intolerance on this issue, but let me go one step further. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic establishment are signing off on Democrats voting for Prop 8 by pandering to the voters who they think will vote against them if they support ending discrimination against homosexuals. If Democrats flock to the polls for Barack Obama because they are inspired for him — and, if the primaries were any indication, they will — they could be inspired to vote against Prop 8 and against ending the extension of civil rights to same sex couples. Marriage in this country, as in every country, is a legal institution more than it is a religious one — try telling me more people aren't legally married than are married in the eyes of a religious order, especially given that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize the second marriages of divorcees — and it confers upon those that enter into the marriage contract certain rights and certain responsibilities under the eyes of the law. It's a government-sanctioned, government-recognized contract.

In last night's debates, Barack Obama called out George Bush for squandering an opportunity after 9/11 to call the American people to service and sacrifice by instead calling on them to shop. Barack Obama is asking us to put him in that same position after November 5th. I'm just hoping that he doesn't squander it either, not on this issue.

Same-Sex Marriage Defense On Red Alert [EDGE Boston]
LDS Church Taking Position On Gay Marriage [KIDK]
California: McCain vs. Obama [Real Clear Politics]
Just Folks [BloggingHeads]
Related: Barack Obama Campaign Site
No On Prop 8

MOE: Okay, first of all, re the companies chosen for those coveted Iraq oil contracts of course they did, some people are complete idiots, Paul Krugman thinks Obama needs to be more like Reagan than Clinton…so what's Obama doing here??



MEGAN: On the first story, gotta love this quote:

The advisers — who, along with the diplomatic official, spoke on condition of anonymity — say that their involvement was only to help an understaffed Iraqi ministry with technical and legal details of the contracts and that they in no way helped choose which companies got the deals.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that?



MOE: Also I don't know if you've been reading about this book but it's been eliciting some really surprising rarely-articulated viewpoints from pundits such as:

The people who fund and run the GOP are simply too committed to the idea of cutting taxes for affluent people and reducing government spending… In fact, even saying the GOP estabilshment is "committed" to these things understates the grip of economic libertarianism over the party. It suggests a worldview that's the product of some reflection, when in fact the economic libertarianism of big GOP donors is mostly an expression of their self-interest

And in case you didn't catch what he was trying to say there:

—i.e., they want to keep their own taxes low.

MEGAN: As for McCain's record, not to bash on John Aravosis whose work I normally like, but Jeffrey Klein did that story way better, like two weeks ago without going into the gutter at all.



Well, the problem with Noam Scheiber's analysis in that review is that he repeats the claptrap that the GOP is ostensibly committed to reducing government spending, which is utter bullshit.

Let's bust that myth people. They are committed to saying they want to reduce government spending, and committed to spending more of it in ways that appeal to them ideologically (i.e., defense, abstinence education, marriage-promotion) or appeal to their constituents (i.e., earmarks)

MOE: Okay here's the thing:

The authors say they blew their chances to capitalize on their opening to these voters “by confusing being pro-market with being pro-business, by failing to distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility, and by shrinking from the admittedly difficult task of reforming the welfare state so that it serves the interests of the working class rather than the affluent.”

To "distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility" is, as near as I can figure, the opposite of "pro-market."

MEGAN: Yes, I would agree with that completely. Of course, apparently, "spending that fosters independence and upward mobility is — surprise! — serendipitously spending on things like marriage promotion and putting more black people in jail and abstinence education!

Douthat and Salam say to the contrary that the social issues are a major part of working-class insecurity. “Safe streets, successful marriages, cultural solidarity and vibrant religious and civic institutions make working-class Americans more likely to be wealthy, healthy and upwardly mobile. Public disorder, family disintegration, cultural fragmentation and civic and religious disaffection, on the other hand, breed downward mobility and financial strain — which in turn breeds further social dislocation, in a vicious cycle that threatens to transform a working class into an underclass."

Great, so, the government is now going to be able to solve the problems of family disintegration by.... making divorce harder? Making marriage necessary for all pregnant women? They're going to solve religious disaffection by... making religion mandatory? And, God knows the Democrats love them some public disorder. Yum, goes perfectly in my coffee.

MOE: The thing that is so dreamy about talking about this stuff as a failure to distinguish between the different kinds of "spending" is that it really cuts to the heart of the issue that, as some guy points out on today's WSJ edit page OF ALL PLACES…numbers lie!

MEGAN: Whoa, seriously, someone spiked the coffee with LSD at the WSJ this weekend:

there is no such thing as "the economy."

MOE: The first Harper's reading last month said this a lot better, but I'm not sure where it is online. Maybe I'll just screengrab it here.

Dammit, it doesn't want to let me, oh well.

MEGAN: Although, back to the intersection of economics and politics, I spent hours yesterday obsessed with the implications of this chart. Which goes with this article but the article's less interesting and not just because I like pretty pictures.

MOE: Oh here it is. Anyway we forgot to discuss < a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aftgJ3S0euEQ&refer=home">Steven Hatfill, whose name is not Mohammed and therefore actually got some money out of his whole post-9/11 harassment, or we never did, because that happened on Friday and I was too tired out from Dimitri the Lover to do a proper news roundup, but hahaha he did well for himself. And Mallaby who I generally love has something on oil and speculation and whatnot.

And now I have to try to get on the internet bus

BRB as they say.

9 minutes

MOE: And I'm back! On the bus. But I'm still using the free Dupont wifi signal so I'm not sure if that's sustainable.

MEGAN: I think it kicks in on the bus pretty soon, but we can totally hurry up.

Anyway, what's fascinating about the chart I sent is about the redistribution of wealth in this country, from the Midwest to the Coasts (by and large) and the weirdness that Alaska and Hawai'i were two of the richest 12 states in 1976.

And about how the richest states — and by and large, the richest people — are increasingly turning to the Democratic party. Fucking elitists.

—-—-—16 minutes—-—

MOE: Hey

Do you read me?

MEGAN: Yup

MOE: The wifi server is allegedly just getting reactivated

So I'm on bberry.

Anna is going to kill me but. If this works it isn't a bad thing. Free wifi in DuPont is good!

MEGAN: No problem! I got grabbed coffee and a yogurt and plugged my computer back in as I was previously sitting on the front porch watching my neighbor playing with his baby and the cats of the 'hood stare at me

Anyway, the wifi bus worked fine for me the one round trip I took it. I, um, spent most of the time IM'ing with people.

MOE: So Cass Sunstein co authors an oped in the Wash Post... Cass sunstein is the Obama policy adviser yes? It doesn't mention that. But anyway it is about the death penalty. I wanted to bring up Juan Williams admirably

MEGAN: Juan Williams?

Also, Cass Sunstein, I'm not sure if he's an adviser but he's definitely a fan

MOE: Frustrated performance on fox news Sunday re the supreme courts striking down the gun ban

MEGAN: Sadly, I have no cable but I will find a clip.

I mean, my parents have no cable because my mother doesn't believe in it.

MOE: Maybe I can find a clip. What he lacked in eloquence he made up for in abject what the fuckitide

My dad and I talked about whether murder is the worst crime. He believes in the death penalty for people who cut off peoples legs and gouge their eyes out and such.

MEGAN: On the other hand, I think blind people and amputees would probably disagree, right?

MOE: If I can't get wifi on this bus I'm going to make them drop me off on the side of the 295

MEGAN: As though there's wifi along 295?

MOE: Well if you had your arms and legs cut off and your eyes gouged out by some crazy child rapist you might feel like giving that guy the lethal injection, I dunno,

MEGAN: But is it worse than murder? Would I rather be dead than mutilated? I guess I already made the decision a long time ago that I'd rather be a living sexual assault victim than a dead one. So I guess that makes murder worse.

It's kind of a subjective question

MOE: Yeah anyway sunstein mostly discusses the evidence or lack thereof for and against the concept that the death penalty is a deterrent which is sort of the same question...

MEGAN: For the death penalty to be a deterrent, people would have to believe sincerely that the likelihood is that they will get caught.

MEGAN: Most people aren't weighing the consequences of their actions or thinking that far ahead, frankly.

MOE: I wonder what the penalty for advertising internet access on your bus service and failing to deliver is...

MEGAN: Ok, that's totally a capital offense.



MOE: Lol I just passed the capitol.

Some of us, of course, are little sick of talking about sexism vis a vis Hillary, because we already try to read everything we can find on the subject. When Anna asked me to synthesize today's Los Angeles Times and Washington Post post-mortems on the topic, I sort of rolled my eyes, until she pointed out that while we try to be constantly on the lookout for it, misogyny isn't something that comes up in every day conversation for most Americans.

Jonathan Chait writing in the L.A. Times mentions the oft-discussed feminist generational divide, in which second wave stalwarts like Gloria Steinem claim that "some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system." While I hate it that the feminist narrative in this campaign has been shaped in part by Steinem's infamous New York Times op-ed (i.e., the idea that women of my generation aren't voting for Hillary because we don't believe sexism exists), I think her statements and the impassioned articles written by other second wavers have brought gender discrimination back to the forefront.

It's too soon to tell if Hillary's candidacy will have long lasting implications on American women, or more specifically women in women in politics. As Ruth Marcus says in today's Washington Post, "If you care about seeing a woman elected president, one of the biggest disappointments of this campaign is the paucity of credible women waiting in the wings, in either party." Marcus also says that Hillary has been "ironically, refreshingly post-feminist" in her rhetoric. "Post-feminist" implies that there is one feminism and that by occasionally referring to herself as a "girl," Hillary has somehow transcended or subverted it. Hopefully what Hillary's campaign has done is remind everyone that feminism is in the here and now, and that its definition is always up for debate.

Hillary Clinton Hits 'Sexism' In Media Coverage — Says Gender Bigger Drawback Than Race [Editor & Publisher]
The Ground Clinton Broke [Washington Post]
It's Not Personal [Los Angeles Times]
My Lady Parts Do Not Ache for Hillary Clinton [Village Voice]

Earlier: How Much Did Misogyny Cripple Hillary's Historic Campaign?

MOE: I'll be back in 10. If you have any ideas about what the fuck we should talk about (besides IT'S FRIDAY) I would be stoked
MEGAN: This?
MOE: I actually did read that. It reminded me of BangieB.
8:30 AM
MEGAN: Oh. My. God. Apparently, the New Kids on the Block are performing live at Rockefeller Center today?
MEGAN: Right the fuck now!
8:40 AM
MEGAN: This may be the first time I've ever seen this many women our age in one place since I went to see the anniversary of Dirty Dancing. Also, there's no "background" track and they, um, kind of suck and are playing a medley. No, I take it back, Joey's pretty good. The background dancers outfits were pretty inexplicable except that they looked like they were from when NKOTB was popular. [This mini recap provided possibly solely for the benefit of my childhood friend Caroline]
MEGAN: Wow, Marky Mark is the much more talented brother.
MOE: Um understatement sorta? Although did you ever see that VH1 special where Donny was talking about how he thought he was Liberace? It was kind of priceless.
MEGAN: No, but now I totally want to. Also, that was 2.5 minutes of my life I will never get back.
MEGAN: Ok, so, other serious stuff? The people that owe the copyright to Curious George are going to due over those monkey T-shirts.
MOE: To due?
MOE: haha
MOE: Kidding!
MOE: Sorry I'm still trying to locate my keys.
MEGAN:

"We find it offensive and obviously utterly out of keeping with the value Curious George represents," said spokesman Rick Blake. "We're monitoring the situation and weighing our options with respect to legal action."

The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid - detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94.

They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, that everyone else is.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain."

Could the party pivot from the president? I spoke this week to Clarke Reed of Mississippi, one of the great architects of resurgent Republicanism in the South...Is the Republican solid South over?
"Yeah. Oh yeah." He said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe. Obama's picture is all over the wall."

Anyway, the artists stayed. While I was away trying to have a career, they bought long-abandoned real estate and painted murals and taught school and built bars and occasionally joined civic associations and marched in parades and became committeemen. They masked their wonder and idealism and hope in gratuitous tattoos and beards and funny little slacker-rituals like bringing their kids to bars, but damn if they didn't sort of spruce up the place. If you think I am romanticizing common Richard Florida shit, fuck you, it isn't like I hadn't thought of that; it isn't like they didn't think of that.

All of which is a long way of getting back to the original point: that, despite its waning relevance insofar as broad macroeconomic and demographic trends are concerned, I always drew inspiration from Philly's trajectory. It was a place that very slowly and quietly kept getting prettier and nicer and cleaner and less disrepaired, fueled in large part by a bunch of artists seeking a working-class existence in a community untainted by all those pollutants that flow through places with delusions of being at the Center of the Universe.

But yeah, today it was muggy and overcast and slow and cluttered and on my walk to my polling place at 12th and Federal in South Philadelphia, I stopped to think how orderly and businesslike and prosperous it made my new corner at Rivington and Allen in New York look by comparison. And when I walked inside the little Italian social club and they couldn't find my name on their damn roster I couldn't get mad: I hadn't, after all, even lived on the block the last time I'd voted there. (I'd abandoned it for a job or a career or a piece of the action or whatever, a chance to double my rent for half the space, etc.) I simply asked my committeeman — a hefty, silver-haired Italian I didn't recognize who was munching on a paper plate of penne and kidney beans — how he figured our block had voted today.

"I don't know and I don't care!" he roared jovially.

"You don't care?"

"The turnout has been great, that's all that matters. I'm happy either way. It's when people don't vote that you've got a problem."

I smiled and thanked him and ran out to catch the train home. A cab driver on call picked me up on Broad Street. He said he'd take me part of the way. As we approached City Hall, a flock of Obama people standing on the median wove signs and those Styrofoam things they sell at Sixers games. The cabbie started honking wildly and laughing.

"Did you vote for Obama?" I asked.

"I'm a crazy Republican, I voted for McCain," he said. "But I like Obama. Look at him, he is smart and came from nowhere to Harvard and he has dark skin, it is time for someone with a little dark skin. Why have the same people over and over in charge? So one person can lead and then their son and their wife and their daughter can lead as well? I come from Pakistan and I never liked Bhutto. Her grandfather was a politician, her father was a politician, now her son is a politician. Let someone else do it for a change. Obama is a great speaker because black people are great speakers. Even black people who are not educated or have nothing, they have great voices, they can sing, they can make you feel inspiration. And look, not all black men are in jail, look at this one!"

He let me off at 17th and I walked the rest of the way to the station. And yeah, that's pretty much all I got for you guys from the real world: a Pakistani cab driver, like the Tom Friedman style guide taught me. But whatever. I'm almost home and will be back blogging imminently. In the meantime: go Barry!

—Moe

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

Megan: So, the reason I wanted to interview you is that a couple months back, Jezebel invited its readers to take a candidate match survey and an absurd proportion of readers found you at the top of their lists when going on issues alone. Mike: Actually, I get that a lot. It's really interesting to me because it just shows that when people know where I stand they end up finding out we have a lot in common. The problem is that the corporate owned media has gone out of its way to stop me from being visible.

Megan: So, it's not just Jezebel readers? Interesting. I did notice that you were kept out of the (many) recent debates, and then they did it to Kucinich too.
Mike: Kucinich didn't lift a finger when they did it to me, actually.

Megan: Sort of like, when they came for the labor unionists, I didn't say anything, huh? But, why do you think that is that they decided to keep people out? It's not like you got an equal amount of time to talk, or that the most recent debates were more interesting because they were smaller.
Mike: In my case, I'm well know to the Powers That Be, and they know that I'm not politics and usual and that I'm not afraid to go out and do stuff even if people disagree with it. Those that are informed, particular those companies [like GE, parent company of NBC] that are part of the military industrial complex, they know me very well and they know that I'm the last person in the world they want to see in power. Unless they're looking for good government, they know there's no way to influence me.

As for the body politic, the elected officials in Washington, they don't understand that the most important change we can make is to empower the American people with the same power they have: to make laws. They're opposed to that. They don't even understand it. What I want to do is give the power of lawmaking back to the people, by allowing ballot initiatives and referenda at the federal level.

Megan: Well, by those metrics, how do you think your campaign is going so far? It's obviously been difficult attracting attention despite a relatively simple series of policy messages.
Mike: Well, I've spent $300,000 so far, half of which came from me and the other half from small, individual donations. It makes it hard to compete with candidates that can and will spend $300 million and more. But, we're getting along. I'm getting some earned media, like this interview, based on my positions which is really helpful.

Megan: Well, that's kind of cool. But, if you wouldn't mind a terrible segue, can we talk about some of your positions? One of the issues of utmost importance to Democratic voters is the War in Iraq. You've been a strong anti-war advocate for your entire political career. Has there been a war you were keen on?
Mike: I am strongly against war- all of them. Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran. While I think that World War II was necessary, it only became necessary because Woodrow Wilson got us involved in World War I and the aftermath of that.

For me, that's the crux of the matter. Wars do not solve problems, they merely beget other wars. That's the tragedy of history... Iraq is not a problem. The problem is that we will go into another war, in part because the military-industrial complex needs conflict to justify production. The underlying structure that permits this to go forward is this attitude of American imperialism. We have a military presence in 130 countries and 700 military bases around the world. If Americans understood this, they wouldn't be for it. They don't want to to be the world's policemen- not when we have an educational system that is shameful, a health system that is shameful and a crumbling infrastructure. What we're doing is following the pattern of prior empires, particularly the Spanish empire who became the sword-makers to the world and were lost in the fog of history.

The people that are running for President, that are left on the scene today, are all supporting this imperialist trend, particularly McCain and Hillary Clinton and even Obama, who doesn't even know that he's supporting it.

Megan: But, let's draw a distinction between you and another candidate who's against American imperialism — Ron Paul. He's for isolationism. That's not your position, I'm given to understand.
Mike: Oh, goodness, no, I'm not an isolationist. Ron would retreat to Fortress America. What I want us to do is to take our place as an equal in the world and commit to the United Nations and work for world governance and world peace. We now have globalization of the economy; of science; of the ability to destroy the planet; and of the environment. You can't just turn back time. He's steeped in that redneck philosophy that we can't give up sovereignty. I'm suggesting that we move some of that sovereignty away from the nation-state structure and into a world governance structure. We will never have peace on earth until we have global governance. The United Nations is a good charter but it's not functioning on its charter, it's become paralyzed and non-functional as states seek to use it to protect sovereignty at all costs. That's not how to get to world peace.

Megan: That's an interesting perspective. Not too many candidates are advocating world government, so to speak. How does this tie into your position on immigration? Do you feel that your experience as a first generation American informed your position on immigration?
Mike:: Although my parents were both French-Canadians who immigrated here in the twenties, I wouldn't say that their experience motivated my position on immigration, except to realize that you come to love your country through choice. They were really proud to become Americans. My attitude toward immigration comes from living various parts of the country, knowing a lot of various minorities in the community I grew up in and where I studied ... I was never exposed to Latinos until I lived in California when I developed a great deal of respect for their willingness to work hard in this country, which is a value that I got from my father.

But, the immigration issue is nothing more than scapegoating. We have an immigration problem in the minds of our leaders, not in the economy. Because our economy is failing, though, they're looking for someone to blame. There's an interesting parallel: the EU, which is surging ahead of us in many facets of development, they just had 6 countries which lowered all their barriers to the movement of people and capital. But we're erecting a fence on the Southern border. If I were President, I would lower barriers, and I would like to see some of further unity in North American, some sort of central economic entity, to try to match the EU and China on the global stage

Megan: Ok, I apologize, I'm really awful at interview segues, but I do want to take a minute to talk about women's issues for our readers. You are a really progressive candidate on the issues of importance to Jezebel readers, and I just wanted you to talk about them for a minute.
Mike: It's not just women's issues. It's gay rights. It's the drug war, too. It's about individual rights. Let's start with the drug war. Everyone knows marijuana isn't addictive or a gateway drug or anything. But, we arrested 800,000 people last year for marijuana crimes. This is appalling, especially when you consider that we could have spent this money on things like health care. Women are in more danger at childbirth than in any other major industrialized country in the world. It's appalling, and yet we're spending the money that could change that on jailing people who smoke marijuana.

When it comes to abortion, we have a government that, whether it's run by Republicans or even Democrats, has failed to make education about sex, sensuality or love the preeminent education of our children. What is more important in life than that? We make out that something's dirty about sex, and let religion get a hold of what we can do in the bedroom. It's appalling, and there's no reason for this. We're free people, and the definition of freedom is the participation in power. When you as a woman lose power over your body by virtue of people determining when you can procreate, then you're not free. Whether you want to talk about LGBT rights or sex education or anything to do with procreation, the dispensing of condoms, needles... health should be the preeminent concern and the government should get out of the equation after that.

We need more women getting elected to public office, definitely. But I have not seen in my career that women who get into power act that much differently than men. For instance, since I'm in California, Barbara Boxer is very liberal and very good, but Diane Feinstein is more politics as usual. Nancy Pelosi is a liberal politician by virtue of her district, but as Speaker she has governed the same way as any man did before her, and it's disappointing. I would love nothing more than to see a minority or a woman as President. But I want the right woman, or the right minority person: one who believes in civil rights, and who believes in peace and not in defense spending. Otherwise, what's the use? It's just voting for the same policies in different clothing.

Megan: That's a really harsh indictment of some pretty seniors Democratic politicians, and I'm not brave enough to delve any deeper than that. So, let's talk a little about you. On a more personal note, what would you say is your biggest regret?
Mike: My biggest regret was when I was in the Senate, I was very controversial. I was a maverick. I used to get a lot of pressure from my staff, and peer pressure, to be more like everyone else. And I regret not being hard enough, not being more partisan, because that's when I got things accomplished. Today there is this whole attitude that we have to reach across the barriers of parties to accomplish anything. But, by reaching across barriers, they don't actually end up accomplishing anything. Whether it was ending the draft or building the Alaskan pipeline, reading the Pentagon papers or stopping nuclear testing in the North Pacific, all of that was done in my first four years, and none of it was done by reaching across the aisle. By reaching across, what it means is that you put the lobbyists in charge, by giving them more control.

Megan: One thing I hear a lot from some readers is that it's supposedly really important to band together and vote for the candidate most likely to win against the "other" guy rather than voting one's conscience. It's something that really frosts my ass [Yes, I really said this] because it seems to me that it flies completely in the face of the whole point of voting. I thought you might have something to say about that.
Mike: You have it absolutely right. If you vote for power over substance, then you won't ever get either. You've got to vote for substance regardless of who you think will win, because you'll see that substance will win out in the end.

Megan: Any last thoughts?
Mike: The key to everything I stand for is: the definition of freedom is participation in power. The American people at the federal level do not participate in power. They give it away on election day, because they vote for people to make laws rather than the laws themselves. So, we don't have the freedom we think we have, and it shows.

Related: Should I Vote For Clinton Or Obama? [Salon]

• Winona Ryder is speaking out now about her shoplifting. Honestly? No one gives a shit. [People]
  
• In the UK, one in four 18-to-25-year olds cannot answer the following question: What is one eighth of 32? [BBC]
  
• Al-Qaeda said to be "stepping-up" its presence in the U.S. Please God, no one tell Elisabeth Hasselbeck. The thought of her ranting and raving about this is scarier than the threat of a terrorist act itself. [BBC]
  
• Memo to Hillary: The woman who is to be India's first female president - not so popular. [NYT]
  
• Harry Potter the book? Too long. Harry Potter the movie? Too heavy-handed. But Harry Potter the postage stamp? Now we're talking! [USA Today]

• And meanwhile, Harry Potter is also the latest problem to afflict Israel, with the new book being released on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Religious leaders = not happy. And now we wonder, are there that many Orthodox rabbis worried about whether Snape is evil or not? [USA Today]
• The lawyer with TB who claimed he had no idea he was contagious had surgery to help treat his condition today. Um, too little too late, bub. [CNN]
• The current crop of Republican presidential candidates? Losers, all of 'em. [CNN]
• 2 U.S. casualties identified. [DoD]