McCain muses on political women in the public eye, noting:

Through it all, the example both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin set is so admirable. I respect any woman who will go out there and run for office. Maybe it's a cliché, but no matter how many differences I may have with a woman politically, there is still a sense of kinship I feel for a woman in politics.

But having seen female candidates attacked on the right and the left, why would any woman my age ever feel inspired to run for office? What kind of example has the media set for my generation of women? I struggle with this. I don't have ambitions to run for office-I have already done enough campaigning for one lifetime-but I already have a pretty good idea of what it would feel like. I have often wondered how the media would react if it were my brother writing these columns and speaking out on behalf of moderate Republicans. I can pretty much bet that his weight wouldn't have been an issue.

Very true, and it speaks to the grueling arena of politics that becomes doubly treacherous for women. While the GOP's women silencing tactics may be a bit more overt, neither party does a good job in supporting women in positions of power, or throwing its party might behind women aspiring to elected office. While the Obama administration fights the image of being a separate but mostly equal boys club, the Republicans are battling their own image crisis. In addition to shouting down women's groups, the party is currently having trouble retaining women who are interested in leadership positions.

It wasn't always this way. When Pryce was first elected in 1992, Republicans had recruited so many female candidates that then-Conference Chairman Jerry Lewis of California ordered up posters featuring their several dozen smiling faces.

But there are just 17 Republican women in the House today.

And with less than a year to go before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans have enlisted just 13 more to challenge Democratic incumbents. Even if all of them won, Republicans would have at most 30 women in the House - about half the number Democrats now have.

Part of the issue is that the hard line stance of the party faithful alienates moderate women who lean Republican, but who also may support things like gay marriage and the right to choose. Dede Scozzafava found herself in the crosshairs of conservatives who felt that her views were too liberal to represent Republicans. Olympia Snowe has also found herself targeted because of her failure to defer to the rank and file. Still, political analysts believe that the only women that are considered acceptable by top officials are also completely in line with right wing ideology that many moderate women voters find them "repulsive:"

In the days after Scozzafava's departure, House GOP leaders took pains to emphasize the contributions of their female members, allowing Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and others to kick off a series of floor speeches against the Democrats' health care proposals.

But Foxx and the best-known female Republican in the House - Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann - are firmly ensconced in the party's right wing, and Foxx proved it with her opening salvo on health care: "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

Bachmann, who trumpeted the "death panel" argument and has accused President Barack Obama of trying to turn the country into a socialist state, is a particularly big draw with conservatives, who flocked by the thousands to her rally at the U.S. Capitol Thursday.

Still, even if one manages to rise to national prominence, they are still subject to far more media scrutiny than their male counterparts in government.

And, considering how this dance has played out time and time again, it's clear that unless we make some major shifts on how prevalent sexism is in our media and politics, both parties are doomed to repeat this same destructive cycle.

Hillary And Sarah's Common Theme [The Daily Beast]
The GOP's Women Problem [Politico]

Earlier: Is White House Sports Culture Detrimental To Women's Advancement?

Palin posted several rants yesterday, most of them aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for wanting to push the bill through by midnight. "Why the rush?" Palin asked in a note titled "Speaker Pelosi, Your Blue Dogs Are Barking," "That's a lot of pages to read. Why not give everyone the chance to read it and debate it?"

In a second note, titled "The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through On Saturday, But Sunday's Coming," Palin celebrates the passage of the Stupak Amendment (surprise, surprise), but once again trots out her old "death panel" fear mongering and asks her readers to check out the provisions regarding coverage for illegal aliens, though she doesn't actually quote the bill or point out what these provisions are:

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it's ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn't covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak's amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won't be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no "death panels" in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

But in perhaps the most interesting section of her rant, Palin builds several conspiracy theories regarding Pelosi's desire to push the bill through the House:

Despite Americans' decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health "care" bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called "the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced"?

I don't know, you guys. I mean, maybe Speaker Pelosi was afraid that Sarah Palin would totally read the bill after she finished reading all the newspapers and magazines and she just wanted to push it through so she could be all "Oh, Sarah Palin, don't you have some designer suits to return? Oh snap flowchart: women in politics edition." Most likely, however, Speaker Pelosi was less concerned with Palin's death panel fearmongering conspiracy theories and more concerned with trying to take the steps necessary to eventually provide coverage for millions of Americans.

In any case, here are a few more guesses as to why Speaker Pelosi had to have the bill passed by Saturday at midnight:

• Really wants to watch the Mad Men season finale without being worried about all that health care hullabaloo
• Not ready to share her werewolf issues with the American public just yet
• Plans to spend all day Sunday praying that pro-choice voters will forget about the passage of the Stupak Amendment (not gonna happen!)
• Trying to prove to the rest of the House reps that C-SPAN is where it's AT on Saturday nights
• Made a deal with Fairy Godmother: Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo provision ensures coverage for Godmothers with magical powers; failure to pass bill by midnight would have turned the United States into a giant pumpkin

Feel free to add your own conspiracy theories in the comments.

The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through On Saturday, But Sunday Is Coming [Sarah Palin]
Speaker Pelosi, Your Blue Dogs Are Barking [Sarah Palin]

You see, in Palin's eyes, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose apparently might have "the mind-set" that allows them to pull the plug on Grandma or force women to terminate pregnancies if the baby is not, in Palin's words "normal or perfect." It is, of course, another attempt on Palin's behalf to scare the shit out of people with her "death panel" nonsense, and her attempt to step it up a notch by tying in her stance on abortion rights (or, rather, lack thereof) just makes things more repulsive. "In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed," Palin told the crowd, "[so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?"

Palin also took the time to drop this laughable statement: "It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn't strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live." You know what else is bogus? That Sarah Palin continues to position herself as a savior of women's rights when her entire platform essentially rests on taking them away.

Palin Rallies Thousands Of Abortion Supporters [Politico]

In early October, the Wall Street Journal published the list of 45 artworks destined for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It included several bronze sculptures by Edgar Degas, eleven paints by American painter George Catlin, a piece by Louise Nevelson, a Rothko, and for the East Wing, Watusi (Hard Edge).

Naturally, political and art bloggers examined the entire list, searching for cues about the Obama's personal taste. Art News reports that there was a conscious effort to assemble a collection with "wall power" - art that packs a punch. As Robin Cembalest reports, there was also an emphasis on showing the best of American art:

"The overarching theme was trying to offer the president and Mrs. Obama the best of America," Smith told me in a telephone interview, describing the First Couple as "unbelievably curious and interested in a lot of types of art." It was a lengthy back and forth. Works by well-known artists on some early wish lists, including Edward Hopper, Charles Burchfield, Jackson Pollock, Franz Kline, Romare Bearden, Brice Marden, and Agnes Martin, fell by the wayside, either for conservation reasons, or because they were currently on view or promised for loan in the next four years. So did works on paper, photography, and video art.

The New Yorker deemed the entire collection "upper-middlebrow in an O.K. way." Obviously, Michelle Malkin had some much harsher words. She, along with several other bloggers, felt that the inclusion of Watusi was a telling example of Obama's general cluelessness. In a way, Alma Thomas, who spent most of her life teaching children and later became the first black artist to show at the Whitney Museum, seems a perfect artist for the First Family to support. However, the composition of Watusi is very, very similar to that of a late Matisse, which Thomas openly admits was the inspiration for her painting. Despite the fact that Thomas has clearly reworked and remade L'escargot in such a way that while it may resemble the original, it is a lot more than a mere copy, some still view Thomas as a thief and a fraud. Malkin ended her blog post on the whole matter with this charming comment: "I know, I know. Cries of "RAAAAACIST" in 3, 2, 1…" Others accused the Obamas of being too clueless to notice the influence, or "turning a blind eye because the artist was black."

Originally Watusi was supposedly going to hang in Michelle Obama's office, but sometime in late October, it was removed from the list. It's been confirmed that the painting was sent back, but Art News was unable to find out why. However, Cembalist does conclude that "the story behind this painting may also presage the cultural politics of the Obama administration." Considering the comments on Politco's post - which range from "Leave the painting - its emblematic of this phony, deceitful administration" to "The right wing hates this president so much they criticize some paintings? Really?" - this seems rather likely.

Critics Nix Obamas' Pix Mix [Art News]
White House Ditches Painting [Politico]

In a seven page piece exploring everything from Pelosi's preferences for dark chocolate ice cream to her varying smiles, writer Vanessa Grigoriadis paints an interesting - and slightly familiar - portrait of the Speaker of the House.

She's a kind of Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, imperious with her power and relishing her ability to attack, dropping bombs like "If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their faces off."

Detailing what Pelosi's foes have to say about her (notable comments include "Mussolini in a skirt" and "domestic enemy of the Constitution") as well as her falling approval ratings, one gets the impression that Nancy Pelosi doesn't really give a fuck what's happening around her as long as she can do her job:

All of which might inspire some worry in a person who was paying attention. But Pelosi, pretty much, isn't. She doesn't often watch cable news or follow blogs, and her cell phone of choice is a Motorola Razr. She definitely isn't watching Fox, and can't really tell Sean Hannity apart from the other anchors. For the most part, Pelosi is in a bubble, where much of what passes for politics doesn't penetrate. Her face, the one with the frozen smile, is her mask. She often seems unaware of how it looks. For her, the world consists of her members, her donors, and her family, plus President Obama and Rahm Emanuel, whom she sometimes speaks to several times a day. As far as she's concerned, anything else, and that includes the press, is a petty distraction from her "historic work," as she likes to say, before ticking off the accomplishments of Congress on her watch over the last two and a half years: the passage of large increases in college aid and veterans' health care, raising fuel-efficiency standards and the minimum wage, and ethics reform, not to mention the stimulus, bailout, and a climate-change bill that she masterfully shepherded through the House-where it passed by a margin of one vote.

Translation: Fuck you, she's handling her business.

Throughout her piece, Grigoriadis repeatedly raises the idea that Pelosi is wearing a mask , paying special attention to those moments when Pelosi drops her guard and her "true nature" is revealed:

Pelosi's bill will get diluted later in conference, and who knows how reform might actually play out. As a health-care CEO put it to me, "the only thing that keeps an oncologist out of a patient's coffin is nails." But national health care, even a watered-down version-what a legacy.

"Not so fast on that, on the legacy," says Pelosi, taking a seat in a cream-colored chair in her beautiful office, sun pouring into the room from a high narrow window. She breaks into one of her grins. "I said to Al Gore one time, ‘Your work here will be part of your legacy,' and he said, ‘Um, is there a message here?' " Then the smile is gone, and she begins to frown: Pelosi dislikes the perception of hogging credit, and has even decreed that her staff not use the word I when writing for her. "No," she says. "This is about the health of our country, diet, the way we live, pursuing a more wholesome path. It's personal. It's economic. Imagine what would happen if you could have any job you wanted without worrying about needing health care." She pauses. "And it won't be my legacy. It will be everyone's legacy." She gives a tight smile. "I don't even think in terms of legacy." The eyes pop. "I mean, what?"

Another episode about chocolate ice cream reveals how quickly Pelosi can flip if she starts to feel attacked. After describing how Pelosi giggles when one of her staffers (Grigoriadis writes "servant") brings her two scoops of dark chocolate ice cream, she relates the following story:

Chocolate ice cream is the staple of Pelosi's diet: She doesn't cook herself, so except for a salad for lunch and whatever an aide hands her for dinner, that's what she eats. "I think that's the first time she's ever turned it down," whispers her personal assistant, later. "The other day, she came in at 8:45 a.m. carrying a pint of Häagen-Dazs with an inch left in it-she'd eaten the whole thing on the way in. She handed it off to Michael, and then two hours later, she said, ‘Where's that ice cream? Can I eat the rest of that?' " (At one point, when she mentions to me that she likes artisanal ice cream, I joke, "Oh, elitist ice cream," and she shoots back: "It's not elite. It's not elite. It's just a small operation.")

In addition to the mask references, Grigoriadis also plays up the congressional royalty aspects of Pelosi's personality.

Unlike in the Senate, the majority rules absolutely in the House, and that suits Pelosi. She may not want to be a queen-when members of the Black Caucus called her that once, she said, with typical regal flourish, "I am not an emperor or a queen, but neither am I a fool"-but in reality, the House is hers to rule. If Pelosi wants to put a member on Ways and Means, she just makes the committee bigger. If a member is upset, she can give him a big office budget. If he's still not happy and she knows he has an interest in NATO, she can prioritize his access to an airplane and off he goes. This has let her create a leadership style that's less stick and more carrot. She maintains goodwill by feminine touches like presents of flowers, weekly meetings with freshmen, thank-you notes, calls to associates' sick family members. "Nancy has a minister's political skills," says Majority Whip James Clyburn. "She looks for common ground, seeing and feeling things that most people don't."

Amid all the discussions of giggling and Pelosi's personal touches, what's often obscured is Pelosi's keen mind for strategy. As Grigoriadis writes:

This is her Congress: She engineered the strategy for taking back the House in 2006 with Rahm Emanuel, a two-year congressman she tapped to be her deputy, and who likes to call her "mommy." That was a time of some intense giggling, with the two of them-the fancy lady and the potty-mouthed Rahmbo-so ambitious, so driven, that every possible seat that could be occupied by a Democrat is now occupied by a Democrat, which is an opportunity and a challenge. There's nowhere to go but down.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is very skilled at understanding how political games are played. In one of the more revealing moments in the piece, Pelosi's tough exterior is shown to be wrapped in pragmatism, with a steely understanding that while ideals are nice, the important thing is making sure the work proceeds:

The other party is very much outside her bubble, barely noticed. "Nancy really doesn't care about Republicans, because she doesn't believe the whole bi-partisan thing exists," says a close associate. "Her attitude is, ‘God bless their souls, but these people don't believe in global warming. They just don't agree with us.' " She loves Obama, knows that he's her best hope. "She has a new source of energy, in wanting this young man to succeed," says Congressman George Miller, a close friend, a bit gooily. But there have been a few rocks here and there. She was getting upset over the summer, says a source, at the way Obama was pandering to conservatives to secure a bi-partisan bill, though her office says she was more concerned with the lethargy of the finance committee at the time. Don't waste your time, they are not voting with us, she told him. Did someone tell you they would? The president's attitude was, well, the Republicans are elected, and we're elected; let's all make this work together. Emanuel would get the same earful from her: Does the president not understand the way this game works? He wants to get it done and be loved, and you can't do both-which does he want?

Specific discussions of how her gender has impacted her perception in the public sphere are limited in the piece, but Grigoriadis does make an excellent point about the balancing act that women endure, in attempts to look both tough and vulnerable without looking hard or weak.

To look weak in public, well, that's Pelosi's worst nightmare. Hillary might cry to boost her poll numbers, but a powerful woman nearing 70 always keeps a stiff upper lip, never showing more emotion than Maggie Thatcher. And, in a way, it works for Pelosi, having the world see only the hard shell, thinking she's an archetypal female monster with a pasted-on smile. The smile is meant to balance out her aggressive rhetoric, to calm men down, to seem less threatening (it doesn't work, of course); but it is also a way of shutting people out of her true emotions, who she really is. But that's okay-she is willing to have people not understand her. If need be, she's willing to be hated. Not caring makes Pelosi powerful. She'll listen to her poll numbers from her staff, but she doesn't really process them. "I'll take the hit," she likes to say, waving a hand. "I'll take the hit."

Some of Pelosi's nature could probably be ascribed to her upbringing in Baltimore, where she was knee-deep into politics from an early age:

She's the seventh child and only daughter of Thomas "Big Tommy" D'Alesandro Jr., a slick dresser who wore diamond rings on each of his pinkies and began representing Little Italy in Maryland's House of Delegates at 22, followed by five terms in Congress and three as Baltimore's mayor. (When asked about his rival in one election, D'Alesandro said, "I don't know [who he is], but it's some no-good son of a bitch, that's all I can tell you.") Nancy's childhood home functioned as D'Alesandro's auxiliary office, with a portrait of FDR in the living room, copies of The Congressional Record stored under her bed, and an open door for constituents searching for jobs, permits, stop signs.

The political arena is not a place for the faint of heart, and through her years in Congress, Pelosi has always focused on the bottom line: does she have the votes? A master politico, Pelosi is credited with "raising $155 million" for the Democratic Party over the last seven years, and her ability to give the outward appearance of compromise while pressing for her beliefs has served her well. But still, even while she works to balance her two selves, she still isn't going to stand there and take anyone's shit.

Last week, at the unveiling ceremony for her new health-care bill on the Capitol steps, she smiled away, reminding everybody that they should celebrate this historic day. On the lawn, a knot of protesters kept shouting at her, distracting from her important purpose. "You will burn in hell for this," one man yelled into his megaphone, over and over.

She tried to ignore him, but finally shot a withering look his way. "Thank you, insurance companies of America," she declared, smirking a little.

The mask is back on.

Why Is Nancy Pelosi Always Smiling? [NY Magazine]

Relating the tale of Dede Scozzafava, a Republican Congressional hopeful targeted by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, Linda Hirschman explains that the GOP has a definite idea for the role of women in the party - and it isn't in elected positions.

But Scozzafava's defeat and the mounting campaign against Hutchison reveals a fascinating and underreported problem for the Republicans: They will only run women who will say that women should not control their reproductive fates. Although there are many male Republican candidates who easily embrace this position, politically accomplished women who believe in criminal abortion are rare, even in the Republican Party. And the ones who surface are likely to be, well, rogue. [...]

The transformation of the Republican Party by the rise of conservative, evangelical, and Southern movements disables the Republicans from grooming a new generation of female candidates. For one thing, the fecund, domesticated women they admire are too busy staying home with their children, and as a result there are very few prominent female Republican office-holders (as Palin's incoherent campaign reflected, it is very hard to be Tracy Flick, from Election, and June Cleaver simultaneously). The only elected female Republican governor (there are two who succeeded governors who resigned) is an outlier-a pro-choice Jewish woman from Hawaii. And Alaska's young Senator Lisa Murkowski is classified as a moderate and has a mixed record on the all-important abortion litmus test. By contrast, there are 13 female Democratic senators and four elected female Democratic governors. Only one-quarter of the 80 female representatives in the U.S. Congress are Republican; three-quarters are Democrats. Republican Scozzafava's withdrawal leaves these numbers in place.

It's clear that the unrelenting adherence to an anti-choice agenda is hurting the Republican party, in both representation and numbers. However, there are many who embrace their anti-choice stance and are using it to advance other priorities. In a different Daily Beast piece, Dana Goldstein explores how conservatives are successfully flexing their lobbying might and severely restricting abortion rights in the health care bill:

The Pelosi bill contains a number of provisions that would improve women's access to affordable health care, including ending "gender rating"-in which insurers charge women more for coverage-and making it illegal to classify C-sections, domestic violence, and even pregnancy as pre-existing conditions that disqualify women for health insurance. It includes new funding for comprehensive sex education, supplanting some of the abstinence-only programs favored by the Bush administration. The bill also aggressively expands Medicaid, the existing federal health-insurance program for low-income women and their children, which includes generous birth-control coverage.

But on the narrower issue of abortion access and affordability, the major pro-choice organizations aren't shy about expressing their disappointment: The legislation references abortion more than 25 times, mostly in an effort to restrict access to the procedure.

Conservative opposition to the health care bill has manifested in a few ways that actually strengthen regulations surrounding abortion. So, even with a pro-choice majority, our reproductive rights are still in danger:

Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues, told The Daily Beast, "Currently, it's not that we can't pay for coverage that includes abortions. It's that we can't cover abortions. The new standard is stricter than the standard in Hyde."

In addition, in each state, the health-insurance market must include one plan that does cover abortion, and one plan that does not. But because the vast majority of insurers currently do cover the procedure, pro-choicers view the provision as a step forward for the opposition. "That kind of leans toward the pro-life position," Waxman said.

How the GOP Loses Women [The Daily Beast]
Abortion Under Fire [The Daily Beast]

I'm guessing liberal women can handle the cliches: Birkenstocks, humorless earnestness, unshaved legs. Yeah, Robinson hits them all in there in his attempt to draw a contrast with those sex-kittens on the right. I'm guessing said women will be really flattered by that gentleman's euconia, which reads like propaganda, quite frankly, from the left - or at least an Onion editorial on an off-week. Here are a few gems from the guy's tribute:

"The primary reason our womenfolk are at war with the looming spectre of the nanny state is because you can't buy Jimmy Choos in a socialist paradise. The only sensible footwear you'll find in a right-wing woman's closet are the Nike cross-trainers that go with her gym membership. Everything else has a three-inch heel. Minimum."

"A right-wing woman hits the gym, swings past Sobey's and has dinner on the table by the time you get home ... And when that plate of food is put in front of you by the right-wing hottie you had the good sense to marry, it will be 100% tofu-free."

"And in case you're not convinced, to indicate the utter superiority of the right-wing woman over the left-wing variant ... just turn on The View. The left has Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg. We've got Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Checkmate."

Charming. We'll report your compliments to Mary Matalin and Condi Rice at once. They'll be really flattered. And I wish we could return the favor, but sacrifice though it is, the babes of the right wing can have you, Mr. Robinson. As Josh Waitskin would put it, "trick or treat."

Right-Wing Women Rock [Calgary Sun]

Yesterday afternoon, the Oscar-winning actress took to Congress to lobby for the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA). Representing UNIFEM, she aimed her testimony at women who need the world's support while standing up against atrocities:

I learned from Marie that she was a survivor of violence, forced by her father into an abusive marriage as a young adult. She fled after her first pregnancy, and found support to further her education through a religious organization. Confronted with the cruel impact on women and girls from the continuing conflict in the DRC-where rape is used systematically as a tactic of war-Marie took action. She started an organization to help victims of violence, mostly widows and orphans, many affected by HIV/AIDS. Over the years she's built a national network of NGOs to care for survivors and empower women. With the Trust Fund grant, her group expanded services to include medical care, counseling, legal and economic support. Marie fully understands the need for a comprehensive approach.

Another time in Kosovo, I met and listened to women sharing experiences. One told me how she had been repeatedly raped and abused by soldiers leaving her with lasting physical and psychological scars, and pregnant. In her community, this child brands her forever as an outcast. Yet, she did not remain silent. Together with other women's rights advocates, she bravely took her testimony of how mass rapes shatter lives and communities to the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia, a legal landmark for prosecuting rape in wartime as a crime against humanity. These champions need and deserve our support. Not with a box of band aids, but with a comprehensive well-funded approach that acknowledges that women's rights are human rights.

It is time for policies that intentionally involve society's key communities-from health and education departments, to the police and judiciary-to deliver on that commitment. The plan must build strong alliances with men and collaborate with faith-based and traditional leaders. To succeed, it requires political will at the highest levels.

In addition to speaking on international current events, Kidman candidly answered a question posed about Hollywood.

Nicole Kidman conceded Wednesday that Hollywood has probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects.

The Oscar-winning actress said she is not interested in those kinds of demeaning roles, adding that the movie industry also has made an effort to contribute to solutions for ending the violence.

Indeed, Kidman has set an example in the industry with the roles she accepts, portraying a long line of interesting women. She's stepped into the skin of Virigina Woolf in The Hours, a good woman with a hard secret in Dogville, an unapologetic career woman in The Stepford Wives, and the wicked Mrs. Coulter in The Golden Compass. Her upcoming roles, including that of a glamorous movie star in the musical Nine, show more of Kidman's talents, with nary a hooker, victim, or doormat in sight.

"International Violence Against Women: Stories And Solutions" (PDF) [House Committee on Foreign Affairs]
International Violence Against Women Act [Amnesty International USA]
Kidman: Hollywood Probably Contributes To Violence [AP]

White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country's most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it's not a legitimate news operation.

Yes, Faux News is a terrible excuse of programming and I would love if their racist, sexist, homophobic anchors and executives would suddenly vanish from the Earth, Left Behind-style, but instead of going to Heaven they were deposited in the scenario described by that old Got Milk? commercial:

But, that being said, I'm not thrilled with the Administration aggressively going after its opponents in this way. I'd much rather see some aggressive action toward keeping the base engaged, thinking up catchier hooks for these policy mandates, and reaching out to the communities that helped to elect Obama in 2008.

The GOP does a fine enough job digging their own grave - kicking dirt into their eyes while they're shoveling isn't really necessary.

Obama Strategy: Marginalize Most Powerful Critics [Politico]
Left Behind [Wikipedia]

• After being passed over for a promotion at McDonald's because of her pregnancy, Rhonda Floyd started a support group of sorts to benefit women in the hospitality industry. "McDonald's is very male-dominated," she said, as are many businesses in the leisure and hospitality sector. • British cops recently caught three woman and a man who were trying to pimp six girls aged 14-23 at a West London hotel. They were also offering a 12-year-old virgin for up to £50,000. All four have been arrested and are facing criminal charges. • According to Nicola Pease, the very same laws designed to protect women in the workplace are actually holding us back. Pease says there is no more sexism in the finance sector, except that which the ladies bring upon themselves by having babies and demanding maternity leave and other unreasonable things. • Author and women's activist Malalai Joya on Obama: "He must criticize how the United States helped turn Afghanistan into a safe haven for fundamentalist terrorists and now helps prop up a corrupt regime and a powerful drug mafia... If I ever do have the chance to meet President Obama, I will try to convey to him these points and tell him very clearly that U.S governments have betrayed the Afghan people enough." • Ximena Hartstock is the acting director of D.C.'s Department of Parks and Recreation, but she may be forced out because of her race and gender. She claims that at a recent city council meeting, Councilmember Marion Barry raised questions as to whether Hartstock could relate to African Americans or if she could do the job as well as a man. •  Kim Ng may become the first female General Manager in baseball. She was spotted having lunch with Padres owner Jeff Moorad, and has previously interviewed for GM positions with the Dodgers and the Mariners. •  As part of a charity event a group of men from New York state put on some pumps and walked a mile in women's shoes. The money raised by the walk has been donated to Alternatives for Battered Women, which operates a shelter for victims of domestic violence. •  A television show/internet competition that has been described as a "cross between Sports Illustrated and Next Top Model" has come under attack from feminists, who think the bathing suit-based contest is sexist. • Researchers have found that new mothers spend 20% more time awake than they did before giving birth. The resulting "postnatal insomnia" can often lead to depression and anxiety problems for stressed parents. Doctors advise that women suffering from postnatal insomnia seek help as soon as possible. • Quinceañeras — lavish parties given by Latino families to celebrate a girl's 15th birthday and transition into womanhood — are gaining popularity in America. Michele Salcedo, author of a book on the practice, says, "It's a way to push back a lot of the negativity that a lot of Latinos feel is directed at Latinos. It is a way for people who have recently arrived, or maybe not so recently arrived, to say 'I have done well here.'" • In a speech at Morehead State University, author bell hooks said, "God is a feminist because if we accept that God is a god of love then we know that God fully intends for females and males to be self-actualized, self-empowered and full of self esteem." • Just one of many problems for working moms is the fact that many of them continue to see child care as coming out of their paycheck alone, not their family's overall income. Nora Bredes, director of the Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership, says, "Our belief as a society is that mothers are responsible for the care of children, not the couple. We give lip service on how it's a family priority, but it really is all on her." • Québec's fashion industry has adopted a charter to help promote healthy body image, including resolutions to "encourage healthy eating and weight-control habits" and "discourage excessive weight-control practices or appearance modification." • The success of New York police and prosecutors in using DNA to catch rapists in cold cases has lead to a greater push to use DNA evidence in the investigation of other crimes. "It is a tremendously powerful tool that allows us to protect the rights of victims," said California District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert. • 

The question (and the article) is making the rounds as a cute, feel good story about a child that was brave enough to question the hate.

But it gives me pause. I've read it over four times, and it still doesn't sit well with me.

Tyren is only nine years old. Hopefully he was asking what was in his heart. But honestly, no one is required to like the President. Some people will and some people won't. No one is supposed to love Obama. I really hope someone instills this child with a healthy skepticism of authority figures. Secondly, I don't see what God has to do with matters of politics. Some people cite God and argue Obama is the Antichrist, some people cite God and argue that he's the biracial savior come to heal two separate nations, but most people allow politics to be politics and leave God out of it.

Obama did handle the question well, responding:

"Well, first of all, I did get elected President, and not everybody hates me," he told Tyren. "If you're watching TV lately, everyone seems mad all the time. Some of it's just what's called politics. One party wins, the other party feels it needs to poke you to keep you on your toes. You shouldn't take it too seriously. People are worried about their own lives, losing jobs, health care, homes, and feeling frustrated. When you're President of the United States you've got to deal with all of that."

Anyway, there's that. If you think it was cute, great - that was my (religious) boyfriend's reaction as well. He is explaining to me that this comment is rooted in a Bible verse about loving thy neighbor. He argues I am reading too much into a comment from a kid who is most likely trying to make sense of his bible study, nightly news, and fourth grade.

But I responded that kids become adults, and we have a whole lot of adults running around who never had to challenge their beliefs, which is why we are in the fix we're in surrounding civil discourse in this country. And I don't care if it 's out of the mouth of a babe or an elder, putting God and politics too close together always makes me jumpy.

So, perhaps you think I'm overreacting, and it's just a cute little phrase. And if you feel slightly unsettled, you aren't alone in that feeling either.

"Why Do People Hate You And They're Supposed To Love You And God Is Love?" [Blog of New Orleans]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is once again using her clout to shed light on important issues that were pushed to the side during the bloodthirsty Bush Administration. In addition to making women's issues a cornerstone of national security, Clinton now turns her attention to "food security" - the new term for hunger:

Food security represents the convergence of several issues: droughts and floods caused by climate change, swings in the global economy that affect food prices, and spikes in the price of oil that increase transportation costs.

So food security is not only about food, but it is all about security. Chronic hunger threatens individuals, governments, societies, and borders.

People who are starving or undernourished and can't care for their families are left with feelings of hopelessness and despair, which can lead to tension, conflict, even violence. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries.

The failures of farming in many parts of the world also have an impact on the global economy. Farming is the only or primary source of income for more than three-quarters of the world's poor. When so many work so hard but still can't get ahead, the whole world is held back. [...]

Our approach will be informed by experience. We have spent too many years and dollars on development projects that have not yielded lasting results. But we have learned from these efforts. We know that the best strategies emanate from those closest to the problems, not foreign governments or institutions thousands of miles away. We know that development works best when it is seen as investment, not aid.

But soft! What light through yonder op-ed page breaks?

It is common sense, and Hillary Clinton is the sun!

I can't believe it: Someone with a position of authority can finally look at our global political strategy, realize that escalating violence, pre-emptive strikes, and strategic assassinations may not be the best policies for all situations. Finally, someone is looking at the root causes of rage and national instability and is looking toward solutions that involve making investments in humanity instead of the technology of war. Cue CeCe Peniston!

And then, I had to read a little op-ed called "Drill."

Sarah Palin, why are you trying to drag America back into the eco-dark ages? I mean, really. The rest of the world is working to reduce its dependency on natural resources and you're advocating to drill for oil? You want to tap an already short supply for short term gain? Why don't you advocate to bring back coil mines, while you're at it?

Palin writes:

Given that we're spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we'll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

WTF?

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn't push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don't work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets.

Governor Palin: You do know cars run on gas, right? If there are enough gas stations to allow people to drive through Alaska, surely they could find a way to add electric ones. But Palin is tilting against a windmill - the electric car won't be a widespread option for some time, which is why most of the auto industry is focusing on how to reduce gas mileage and many Americans are looking for was to reduce their dependency by car sharing programs, buying more fuel efficient cars, and simply driving less.

Palin ignores science, facts, and innovation in her piece, twisting the truth about our dire circumstances into the best political greenwashing I have ever seen. She finally ends the piece using in this ridiculous campaign rehash:

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There's no getting around the fact that we still need to "drill, baby, drill!" And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: "Yes, we can!"

No, we fucking can't.

This is not the answer.

If you want to provide stable American jobs, the answer is green-collar jobs, not refineries. I really don't understand the desire to keep pushing for a band-aid when we could just start fixing the wound by moving toward green energy. And we need to do it now, before we hit a real crisis.

Now, I don't understand how someone without a job is still worthy of a Gallup poll on popularity, but apparently that isn't going so well.

[H]er current 40% favorable rating is the lowest for her since she became widely known after last year's Republican convention.

Not only is Palin at her lowest favorability yet, her unfavorability ratings have hit a high of 50%. She's also tanking among independents: Only 41% view her favorably, versus 48% who view her unfavorably.

This a joke people. I'm tired of hearing about Palin. I'm sick of hearing a bunch of nonsense dressed up as policy.

And by the way, Palin, it's time to retire that phrase.

Seeding A Safer World [The Guardian]
Drill [National Review]
Palin's Popularity Sinks To A New Low [The Plum Line]

Twitter users were uninterested in McCain's reading choices, but were apparently very concerned about her decision to show them the tops of her breasts. A flurry of insults (now "temporarily unavailable") prompted her to tweet:

so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is

why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment

Later, she was more contrite:

I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic, I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended.

Did McCain really make a "huge mistake" by posting a picture of herself, fully clothed, with a book? It's tempting to say that she must've known people would be looking at her tits. However, McCain is clearly well-endowed in this department, and a tank top that might look like demure sleepwear on a smaller-chested woman looks revealing on her. Yes, she's been on camera a lot, but she's also 24 years old, and she's probably not used to being photographed without someone around to style her. She might have been legitimately unaware that her photo looked kind of cheesecakey.

Then there's the issue of who the fuck cares. LA Times blogger Johanna Neuman writes that, "if she's hurt by the reaction, you can only imagine how her parents feel." And Twitter user uselessgoo echoes, "I bet papa McCain is REAL happy." But John McCain is probably aware that his daughter has breasts. And given that she is in fact wearing a shirt over them, I doubt he's really all that scandalized. All Meghan McCain has really done is turn the image of the buttoned-up, hyper-conservative Republican woman on its head, which she's been doing for a while anyway. Twitter user ReikoEoh writes,

It makes me laugh bc she's so "Unrepublican-like" and upfront about everything; not the usual GOP hypocrite. So rad!

Showing off your boobs may not determine whether or not you're a hypocrite, but it does make Megan McCain look "Unrepublican-like," and thus it may be kind of a smart move. As we mentioned earlier, McCain is getting a lot of press as a young, cool, socially liberal Republican, and this picture — on Twitter, no less — can only strengthen that perception. It might also help drive traffic to her latest venture, a column at The Daily Beast, where she recently wrote about Jessica Simpson, another public figure whose breasts have gotten a lot of attention. Blogger Adam Ostrow writes,

That seems unlikely, as the buzz created is no doubt helping her stats over at The Daily Beast, and her account has become an important medium for promoting her work. Before signing off for the night, she even posted a link to her latest post. Ultimately, this just might add up to a savvy social media play, even if unintentional.

McCain probably shouldn't delete her Twitter account just yet.

Meghan McCain Twitter Photo Causes Stir [Detroit Free Press]
McCainBlogette [Twitter]
Meghan McCain Exposes Her Cup Size On Twitter — Maybe Republicans Really Are Out Of Ideas [LA Times]
Meghan McCain's Twitter Photo Creates Drama [Mashable]
Stop The Fat Jokes! [The Daily Beast]

In a Washington Post editorial today, columnist Kathleen Parker hails entrepreneurs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina and famous daughters Meghan McCain and Liz Cheney as "a glimpse at what could become a surge of hormonal correction on the conservative side." Whitman is running for governor of California, Fiorina is challenging Barbara Boxer in the Senate, Liz Cheney just started a new website, and Meghan McCain is, well, Meghan McCain. Parker points out that these women — especially those actually campaigning — might help mitigate the dearth of powerful women in the Republican party, which currently boasts only three female governors. She writes,

This deficit in high office is both a taint on the GOP and a reflection of the broader assumption that Republicans are monolithically against women's rights. Specifically, the party's pro-life platform alienates pro-choice women, as well as moderates, who otherwise might find common cause with conservative principles.

Women such as pro-choice Whitman and "personally" pro-life Fiorina could help change that impression, while also raising other issues women care about. Fiorina caused a slight ripple in the Republican zeitgeist during McCain's campaign when she criticized insurance companies for covering Viagra and not birth control.

Parker points out that Meghan McCain is pretty liberal on social issues too, and that she, Whitman, and Fiorina might represent an emerging breed of Republican woman — one ready to roll back some of the GOP's more woman-hating policies. This would presumably be good for women who are, say, fiscally conservative, but who have felt alienated by the party's direction in the last 20 years or so. That said, Liz Cheney is pretty much a chip off the old block of grade-A evil, and Parker's predictions of a woman-led tide of greater ideological diversity slam up short when they hit one very visible woman: Rep. Michele Bachmann.

In a Times profile, Monica Davey tallies up the disturbing markers of Bachmann's popularity. She's in the calendar of "Great American Conservative Women"
(apparently she's November). She appears on cable an average of once every nine days. She's seeking reelection to the House, but some speculate she might run for governor of Minnesota. And Sean Hannity has called her "the second-most-hated Republican woman in the country, second to Governor Palin, which is a good position." Given that Bill O'Reilly also thinks she's hot, Bachmann's cred with the far right could hardly be higher.

Of course, she's also batshit insane. Davey points out that Bachmann won't complete her census forms because she thinks they're "intrusive." She thinks health-care reform means death panels and "prayer and fasting" are the way to stop it. She also thinks reform will cause schoolgirls to "be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night." And she apparently thinks Obama might try to get rid of the dollar. It's not just that Bachmann's views aren't woman-friendly — they're not friendly to anyone with a brain.

Parker's hopes for a "hormonal correction" to the Republican Party are all fine and dandy, but being a woman doesn't necessarily mean that you're in favor of women's reproductive rights — or that you're sane. McCain, Whitman, and Fiorina might be early signs of an expanding and diversifying GOP, or they might be decoys, luring fiscally conservative but socially liberal women into a party that's not really going to represent them. Sarah Palin continues to consolidate her power (this time with a national organization called Stand Up for Our Nation), Liz Cheney echoes her dad's old pro-waterboarding rhetoric, and Republican women who stray too far outside the party line (like Olympia Snowe) get called "stupid girls" and, interestingly, "Jezebels" by conservative commentators. So while a newer, broader GOP is a nice idea, Meghan McCain and her ilk might just be beckoning moderate women into a tent that doesn't actually have much room for them.

Time For The GOP Women [Washington Post]
A G.O.P. Agitator Not Named Palin [NYT]
Palin To Launch 'Stand Up For Our Nation' [Politico]
Conservative Radio Launches Sexist Attacks Against Snowe, Collins [Media Matters]

In an interview with Time, Thomas bashes bloggers, but as always, there is some truth in her harsh words:

Everyone with a laptop thinks they're a journalist. Everyone with a cellphone thinks they're a photographer. So our profession is sidelined in a way. There's no turning back. It's frightening because you can ruin lives and reputations willy-nilly without realizing it. No editors. No standards. No ethics. We're at the crossroads.

"Press at a crossroads" is sort of the theme of the whole interview. Although she is there to talk about her latest book, Listen Up, Mr. President, the most interesting parts come when she discusses the relationship between the President and the press. When asked about the differences between Obama and Bush, she says, "No President likes the press. They all hate us." The Obama Administration, she claims, is amazingly adept at the art of the spin. The so-called "managed news" is naturally not something Thomas will support.

There's very little you can do when they control the information. But I think every once in awhile the press knows enough to protest. It's not their information, it's ours. It belongs to the American people... I think it behooves all administrations to tell the truth as much as they can, to bring the people with them. You cannot have a democracy without informed people. It shouldn't be a shock when the public finally learns things.

Sing it, sister.

But her criticism of the current presidency does not stop there. At a recent interview at the Commonwealth Club, Thomas told reporter Phil Bronstein that Obama "lacks courage." "There was a gasp in the crowd," Bronstein writes. "I was the interviewer and it rocked me a little." For Bronstein, this one comment seems to reflect the growing tide of criticism that has been leveled against Obama from the left in the most concise way possible. This is classic Thomas, telling it like it is. Bronstein ends with a little advice for Obama:

So while he's dodging Glenn Beck broadsides and rope-a-doping formerly infatuated Democratic critics, Barack Obama needs to keep a much closer eye on the 89-year-old woman front row at his press conferences than he does on the genuflecting artist who built a giant Nobel Peace Prize sand sculpture of the President in India.

Probably good advice, but not as good as what Thomas herself had to say to any future president: "Do the right thing. There's no other place to go."

And finally, Thomas shares what it is like to write based on opinion rather than straight news (which sounds surprisingly similar to writing a blog): "Now I wake up every morning and ask, 'Who do I hate today?' That's how you write a column!"

Q&A: White House Legend Helen Thomas [Time]
Bronstein At Large: In Conversation With Helen Thomas At The Commonwealth Club [SFGate]
Helen Thomas: White House Watchdog Tells All [CommonwealthClub.org]

Some are criticizing the brief visit as inadequate:

"In order for President Obama to gain a full understanding of the challenges we are facing in our recovery, he needs to extend his planned visit to New Orleans," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Metairie, said at a news conference Monday.

"There is a big difference between campaigning here as a political candidate and spending quality time here as the president. ... The people of New Orleans deserve more than a 'drive-through daiquiri' summit with the president."

But others in the GOP disagree:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, has credited Obama's team with bringing a more practical and flexible approach to the reconstruction process. "There's a sense of momentum and a desire to get things done," he said in August.

When Obama became president, FEMA said there were more than 120 Louisiana reconstruction projects stalled in federal-state disputes. Since January, 76 of those have been resolved.

However, squabbling over what Obama should be doing and/or what Bush failed to do is to begin to lose sight of the larger picture here: New Orleans still has not recovered. Each article provides glimpses of the situation: firefighters still operating out of trailers, homeowners still fighting with FEMA over payments. The Louisiana Weekly took the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina to discuss the rampant homelessness in the region, where it is estimated that there are 11,000 people who live in the city without a dwelling. Organizations tasked with helping people to find affordable housing are facing an uphill battle - they only received 752 housing vouchers while thousands of people continue to squat in abandoned buildings or the shells of their former homes. And we haven't even discussed other states that were decimated by Katrina.

Obama's visit is a step in the right direction, but a small one, and finding a solution to the issues plaguing New Orleans post-Katrina will take more than playing politics.

Obama Set For First Visit To New Orleans As President [LA Times]
Obama To Make First Visit To New Orleans As President [CNN]
Obama To Hear From New Orleans Residents [MSNBC]
On The Fourth Anniversary Of Katrina, New Orleans Is Still Far From Recovery [Louisiana Weekly]

Back in 2008, John Edwards was riding high, having successfully rerouted the national conversation to include a substantial discussion of poverty and holding his own as a contender for the presidency. Less than eighteen months later, Edwards has faded from the limelight in the wake of an extra-marital affair that resulted in a child.

The LA Times' article explores the Edwards' uneasy existence in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where Elizabeth Edwards is coping by throwing herself into a furniture business and a quieter life, and John Edwards is struggling with picking up the pieces of his derailed life and career. The voices of the townspeople loom large in this analysis and the general consensus appears to be anger and betrayal.

Interestingly, a lot of the rage seems to stem from politics, and not Edward's moral failings:

The feelings of betrayal are particularly strong here in Chapel Hill, the famously liberal college town where the family moved after Edwards left the Senate in 2005. In some quarters, John and Elizabeth are both being blamed for pressing ahead with his presidential run despite their shared knowledge of the affair: If Edwards had secured the Democratic nomination, such critics say, the revelation might have meant Republican victory.

The article ends with a Freudian slip of sorts, a clear illustration of John Edwards' tarnished reputation:

The dean, who received a divinity degree in 1971, said Edwards' personal tragedy reminded him of a certain passage from the Book of Psalms. He pulled down a Bible from his office shelf, opened it to the 22nd Psalm and pointed out the line: "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people."

No, no, Boger said. On second thought, that was not the one he was thinking of.

The Dividing Line On John Edwards [LA Times]

Earlier: John Edwards Always Knew He Would Disappoint Women

Okay, let me get this out of the way first. Amy Siskind is not talking to me. Queen PUMA over there isn't counting us folks with brown vaginas, as we are all obviously going to vote with the brown parts, not the pink parts. So, once again, "women" really means "white women," which is who she thinks should be voting for Sarah Palin.

Siskind begins her Daily Beast article with the circular logic that will characterize the piece in its entirety:

I am a lifelong Democrat who for the first time in my life voted Republican in the 2008 elections. I did this for one reason: McCain selected a woman as his running mate. For this act, I was accused of having lost part of my mental faculty: Some circa Victorian act of "voting with my uterus." Strange, that. The Democratic women were corralled to vote for Obama in 2008 because of one issue: reproductive rights. n other words, as my friend Cynthia Ruccia observed, "voting with their uterus."

Siskind complains Obama did not appoint enough women, but ignores the creation of the Council on Women and Girls, and HRC's women-centric security strategy. A while back, I had asked what makes a presidency feminist friendly. While I still question the ultimate legacy of the White House, I am 110% sure that every feminist bone in my body is screaming at the thought of Palin anywhere near the Oval Office. Top five reasons why Palin makes me want puke in my mouth:

• She's anti-choice.
• Palin did not support women's rights in Alaska, and never directly commented (or fought) the policy that sexual assualt victims would need to pay for their own rape kits.
• She uses feminism when it suits, and plays into sexism when it suits.
• Has any one forgotten how she quit her last job? And you would still trust her not to roll out on the Presidency?
• I haven't heard a single bit of policy fall from her lips since she hit the national stage. Where is the plan?

Over two pages of blithering, Siskind directly refers to Palin only twice.

Here's the difference: Sarah Palin played women's basketball. That's how she got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda." And she's had to maintain that same toughness and sensibility as she entered the world of politics-which is, after all, no less a contact sport.

Well, fuck, if that's the logic, Sheryl Swoopes 2012! She made it to the WNBA. Can the Thrilla from Wasilla top that?

Siskind also says:

I know I'll hear from critics who claim that Palin would not share my policy views. But what makes them so sure? As governor of Alaska, didn't Sarah Palin appoint Justice Morgan Christen, who is pro-choice and a former board member of Planned Parenthood, to become Alaska's second female Supreme Court justice?

So the argument here is "she's got a pro-choice friend?"

You want women to vote for Palin? Show us something. Where's her plan on combating poverty? What's her plan for national security? Who is her team of advisers on the economy? What the hell is this woman about, besides a whole bunch of folksy ways and race-baiting?

Voting by identity alone is a stupid strategy. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she gives a fuck about women's rights. Just because someone is a POC doesn't mean he or she cares one iota about his or her community. You can't trust these nebulous notions of identity because everyone defines them differently. As such, the best strategy is to decide which issues are most important to you, and then vote along those lines.

If critics want to diss Obama, fine, but for the love of god, don't prop up some weak sauce candidate because she represents some mythical unified vadge-ocracy. It doesn't exist.

Should Women Back Palin in 2012? [The Daily Beast]
Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped [Huffington Post]
The Palin 'rape kit' controversy [Politifact]
Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist [Politico]
Gov. Palin Says She Will Quit, Citing Probes, Family Needs [Washington Post]
Taking on Class and Race – The Candidates on Poverty [Racialicious]

Earlier: White House Council On Women And Girls Is Subject Of Criticism
Hillary Clinton Tackles Economics, Terrorism, Microlending In NY Times Profile
What Makes a Presidency Feminist-Friendly?
Just Say It: The Race-Baiting Tactics Of John McCain And Sarah Palin Are Reprehensible