The video stars Eva Amurri (Californication) and Zach Gilford (Friday Night Lights), who gamely go through a parade of unfunny "solutions" to apathy about health care reform, each of which appears to be a desperate plea for relevancy, taken from someone's year-end list of what the young people are up to these days. Or maybe someone's idea of what the mythical frat boy wants.

At the end, an older idea — withholding sex to anyone who opposes health care reform — is thrown in for good measure. Updating Lysistrata to get the attention of millennials isn't original either. Back in 2004, Votergasm tried a similar trick to get young people to vote for John Kerry. Crappy video notwithstanding, let's hope the gimmick works better this time.

What Will You Do For Health Care? [Rock The Vote]

He would prefer universal single-payer! He introduced an amendment to that end! It did not even make it to a vote, though, because of parliamentary tactics, whee. But he decided, "this bill will help poor and working people, and no bill will hurt them," and so he is using his leverage to attempt to improve it, like a good socialist senator.

He is not throwing a tantrum (though he does get shouty sometimes!) and inventing a new reality in which this bill's failure means we'll totally get a better health care bill next year or something. I mean, what? The options are literally "pass this HANDOUT to the insurance industries (that they are still lobbying against!) that will insure millions of people and improve the social safety net for those in danger of losing their insurance" or "fuck off home to let people continue to die because we got super mad at Senator Fuckface from Connecticut." There is not a third "Alan Grayson and Keith Olbermann and Matt Taibbi are all elected to a new kind of Senate that only needs three votes to pass legislation and they declare us Canada for Christmas" option.

Look — we like Alan Grayson. We will defend him against those centrist "oh but Democrats have to play nice" assholes who say he goes too far when he says truthful things about Rush Limbaugh. Alan Grayson gives good quote and is a credit to the House of Representatives. He should continue to let his freak flag fly.

But jesus, christ, an Alan Grayson 2012 primary challenge against Obama? Obama, who is not just "Bush-lite" but Bush-same! (Remember when Bush attempted to negotiate an international climate deal, pass a jobs-focused economic stimulus, reform the nation's health care industry, and come up with a hopefully coherent plan to end the Afghanistan war in one year? And remember how his attempts at all those things were stymied by an uncooperative and undemocratic Senate, but he still managed to make real and tangible gains on each of them? Oh, no, you probably don't remember that because it was a joke we were making about how you have lost all sense of perspective.)

What happens when Alan Grayson is elected president, exactly? His sharp tongue embarrasses Ben Nelson into supporting a woman's right to choose? A well-timed quip convinces the Republican party to give up on a scorched-earth style of obstructionist opposition that will probably yield them electoral victories next year? He would pull the troops out. There's that! Maybe you would like some members of his cabinet a little more!

But what we actually need, if you like Alan Grayson, is more Alan Graysons in the House and in the Senate. (Well, what we need is the complete abolition of the Senate too, but let's start small and aim big, the way progressives did things in the days before a millionaire sportscaster was their spiritual leader.) The last couple guys broke the nation, basically, and Barack Obama's best quality might be that he has a very realistic idea of how to begin going about fixing some shit.

Iraqi street fashion has been constrained since 2003, as insurgent forces specifically targeted women who did not wear hijab, and women who wanted to dress in trendier outfits normally covered head-to-toe with an abaya, as to not attract attention.

However, as the situation has stabilized, many women are embracing different styles. At the posh Hunt Club, western style clothing is considered normal. There was even a "Miss Hunt Club" style pageant, that brought forth all kinds of participants.

Contestant Samaa Sameer, 18, was eliminated before the final round, but she says the pageant was a good way to show her confidence. Her mother, who wears a headscarf, beamed.

Sameer says she can't wear trendy clothes everywhere in Baghdad, but at social clubs like this, it's just the thing. She says it may take at least five years before Western clothes for women are common on city streets.

Mohammed summarizes the change in attitude well, saying of his clients:

Iraqi women ought to be free to wear whatever they like. They should be free to choose hijab if they wish, or they ought to be able to express themselves with Western clothing.

In Baghdad, Hemlines Rise As Violence Falls [NPR]

The audience seemed thrilled that Palin was there, and her reading of Shatner's book, Up Till Now, went over quite well, particularly when she read lines like "boom! Taste my nightstick!" Palin seemed relaxed, confident, and clearly in control of the crowd, which isn't surprising, considering that her popularity has been growing as of late. It's fairly obvious that the whole thing was clearly designed to publicize both Palin's book and to continue her image overhaul as someone who is in on the joke, as opposed to being the joke, and judging by the overwhelmingly enthusiastic reaction of the the Tonight Show crowd, her plan seems to be working just beautifully.

Sarah Palin's Popularity Grows, Poll Finds [CBSNews]

Other gems: "how to pick up virgins"; "how to pick up refined girls" and, if a ladyfriend has overstayed her welcome, "Don't move, I have just broken a test tube filled with the Aids virus." While a spokesman assures us that, "This article … in no way reflects the Speaker's views today," there's no mention of the fact that the wit isn't even AskMen caliber. Oh, and given that only yesterday his wife declared in the Daily Mail that "I was a binge-drinking ladette who downed two bottles of wine a day and had one-night stands," she's probably less flustered by the attention than the average political spouse.

Sex Tips From John Bercow, The Speaker Of The House Of Commons [Guardian]
Sally Bercow [Daily Mail]

Witness – just for example – Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, who have recently come under fire for their use of the R-word. Here, according to Media Matters, are a few of the people or things they have recently compared to rapists: healthcare reform; the government of the state of New York; the Democratic party; the media; Nancy Pelosi; President Obama (frequently); and "the homosexual mafia".

Here is a partial list of the people or things these entities are said to be raping: America; American values; the American war in Iraq; the American private sector; Americans in general; the American residents of New York state specifically; and "children's minds". One assumes they are American children. Also, yes, since you asked, the "children's minds" are in fact what is being targeted for rape by the "homosexual mafia", at least according to Michael Savage, because there's really no point, apparently, in defending the age-old stereotype of gay men as child molesters – that might get you in trouble, seeing as how it is blatantly hateful and untrue, when you can just slip it in subliminally with a quick metaphor. (This isn't exactly new ground for Savage: in 2004 he quipped: "When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. When you hear 'human rights,' think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son.")

Charming. Doyle explains that while Savage, Beck, and Limbaugh generally are not motivated to discuss the prevalence of violence against women, overuse of the rape metaphor ensures that their target audience continues to feed on fear and feel constantly under attack. However, Doyle warns against writing off the commentator's understanding of the seriousness of using rape to describe events outside of a sexually violent context:

It's customary to say that people who misuse "rape" as a metaphor for general unpleasantness don't take rape seriously. But I think Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage take it very seriously. They may not have educated themselves on how rape actually happens; they may not engage in anti-rape activism, and they may not make a point of raising audience members' awareness of actual rapes in the world; they may have less than no time to spare for discussing actual sexual assaults, in their catalogue of imaginary figurative rapes. Still, they trade on the public's terror of rape, and apparently respect the word's power to shock and horrify, if nothing else. Which is why these three leaders of men are working, as hard as possible, to create a mental link between that kind of gut-level fear and any or all progressive initiatives and figures.

In essence - they are very, very aware about how their words can be used to incite fear and revulsion by using a rape metaphor.

Thankfully, these pundits are starting to come under fire for their overuse of the term. Media Matters' video compilation from late last month was damningly to the point, illustrating how rape metaphors are trotted out for their verbal impact. Note all the carefully considered pauses and word stresses:

And, as Doyle points out, they've figured out a loophole:

It only becomes ineffective, really, if you use the word "rape" so often that it loses all meaning or power to shock. Which should be easy for Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage to avoid, given that they rarely speak with as much fervour about actual rapes that happen every day.

Trading On Our Fear Of Rape [The Guardian]

Earlier: Figure Of Speech
Why Do Republicans' Fantasies Involve Sex They Supposedly Abhor?

As Hillary Clinton has assumed more and more of the spotlight due to her run for the Presidency and her subsequent appointment to Secretary of State, she has had to confront allegations and assumptions that somehow, Bill Clinton is still asserting power behind the scenes. However, because the Clintons are so closely aligned in many aspects of policy, creating a clear dividing line has started to get tricky:

Yet the real story is more complicated because, 10 months into her tenure, it is clear that their worlds and their interests cannot avoid intersecting. Hillary Clinton has put problems such as Northern Ireland, Haiti and Third World development near the top of the agenda at the State Department, and they are also part of the former president's charitable mission. Bill Clinton secretly helped push the administration's — and his wife's — agenda with North Korea on a trip officially called a humanitarian mission.

Relying on her husband's counsel could have long ranging implications for HRC:

The Clintons declined requests for interviews, but their aides emphasize that Secretary Clinton is carrying out the Obama administration's foreign policy and say that their shared priorities are a coincidence. Some lawmakers, however, are wary of potential conflicts. Bill Clinton's charitable foundation has received large contributions in recent years from governments such as Saudi Arabia's, as well as Indian tycoons and prominent supporters of Israel — presenting what Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) called a "multimillion-dollar minefield of conflicts of interest." In response, the former president agreed to release the foundation's donor list and allow ethics officials to review some foreign pledges; the first annual disclosure of contributions since Hillary Clinton was confirmed is weeks away.

However, to not rely on either Clinton's council would be foolish.

While the Clintons lead separate professional lives, they deal with some of the same leaders and issues. The William J. Clinton Foundation works in more than 40 countries on health, climate change and economic development, often collaborating with governments. The annual Clinton philanthropic powwow drew 33 presidents and prime ministers — from Colombia to Kenya to Turkey.

Mindful of concerns about impropriety, and eager to be judged on her own merits, Hillary Clinton has played down her husband's influence.

In a way, it's saddening how a match of equals has been turned into a potential liability for Hillary Clinton. Reading through descriptions of their obvious respect for each other's minds (even if Bill couldn't seem to extend that to other parts of their relationship) is actually quite touching. It's rare to hear of a couple on the save wavelength intellectually, as the Clinton's often are:

Friends say the Clintons talk and e-mail frequently and have always been deeply interested in each other's opinions and ideas. "A lot of the overlap in their interests and work you might see now are probably an outgrowth of having worked together on those issues when they were in the White House," said Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

That is true of Northern Ireland, where Bill Clinton helped broker the 1998 peace accords. The couple also has a long-standing interest in Haiti. They visited the poverty-stricken country as newlyweds in 1975, and their involvement intensified with the 1994 U.S. military intervention Bill Clinton ordered to dislodge a junta.

However, there are those who believe that outside of political manuvering, the Clinton's partnership will do far more good than harm in the world:

Haitian Ambassador Raymond Alcide Joseph said the Clinton double-whammy is powerful. "I think Haiti is just more than lucky at this time to have this great couple in various capacities poring over it and looking at it, helping it," he said.

Agreed.

The Clintons Aim To Keep Their Worlds From Colliding [Washington Post]

The study abstract states:

Participants whose partisanship matched that of the candidate they were evaluating consistently rated the lightened photographs as more representative of the candidate than the darkened photographs, whereas participants whose partisanship did not match that of the candidate showed the opposite pattern. For evaluations of Barack Obama, the extent to which people rated lightened photographs as representative of him was positively correlated with their stated voting intentions and reported voting behavior in the 2008 Presidential election. This effect persisted when controlling for political ideology and racial attitudes. These results suggest that people's visual representations of others are related to their own preexisting beliefs and to the decisions they make in a consequential context.

Ben Smith at the Politico isn't entirely sold on the study's conclusion, noting:

The study seems to indicate in passing that the race of the participants doesn't affect the outcome, though it isn't totally clear on that point. It also seems to buy in to the claim that Hillary Clinton artificially darkened an image of Obama, which wasn't terribly widely believed.

Anyway, the research's most practical finding seems to be that devious political hacks don't need to play games with candidates' pictures because the voters are doing it themselves:

Although the number of Blacks holding public office has increased dramatically over the years, light-skinned Blacks have consistently been over-represented, and dark-skinned Blacks consistently under-represented, as elected officials (26). Some have even suggested that a successful strategy for Black candidates who are running for office would be to look ‘‘more white'' in appearance... Our results suggest that voters themselves may alter how they see a racially ambiguous candidate, depending on their own level of support and their corresponding desire to see the candidate favorably.

Smith seems to leave off two other large instances of darkening that occurred in the past 15 years. The first, one that made political headlines, was the darkening of Harold Ford, Jr. in the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee. As Time magazine reported:

[A]s the race has heated up, the issue of race itself has become an ugly part of the campaign. Over the last few weeks, Republicans have aired three questionable ads against Ford, the latest so blatant that Corker condemned it and asked WHIN radio in Gallatin, Tennessee, to stop airing it. In the first 24 seconds, the one-minute ad attacking Ford and his father, and paid for by Tennesseans for Truth, uses the word "black" six times and accuses Ford of favoring African-American issues above others. "His daddy handed him his seat in Congress and his seat in the Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black group of congressmen who represent the interests of black people above all others," the narrator says. Station manager Jack Williams says he pulled the spot hours before Corker's staff contacted him and that it aired just once.

While the ad was not sanctioned by the Republican Party, it came on the heels of two that were: an RNC television commercial that concludes with a backlit figure of Ford striding into a dark hallway and towards the screen in a manner reminiscent of Willie Horton, and a fund-raising mailer designed by the state Republican Party bearing black-and-white photos of Ford that make him look much darker-skinned than he is and uses phrases including "purports," "pretends," and "passes himself off as" - all terms once used for light-skinned blacks who pretended to be white.

State Republican party Chairman Bob Davis has called the allegations of racism ludicrous, but whether the photos were intentionally darkened does not matter, says Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. "The only plausible reason to use such a picture is to play the race card - in an effort to frighten and fire up white voters in a key senatorial race," Parham wrote in an editorial on the Center's website. "Whether they acted with malice or moral callousness doesn't really matter, the end result is race as a wedge issue."

Time magazine also covered the PNAS study, but also added an interesting twist:

While other factors may not have had much influence, when it came to biracial candidates at least, political views were strongly correlated with bias. In one study, participants were also shown photographs of John McCain. No bias toward lighter or darker skin tone in images of the former presidential candidate was evident, regardless of participants' politics. Yet when examining images of candidates of mixed ethnic backgrounds, bias was plain. "Across the three studies reported here," the researchers write, "we found that partisans not only 'darken' those with whom they disagree, but also 'lighten' those with whom they agree." The findings suggest that race bias is very much alive and well in the U.S., and more insidious than we might like to believe. The researchers highlight several examples in which race, or more specifically "blackness" was emphasized to a public figure's detriment-the scandal over whether the Hillary Clinton campaign had deliberately darkened Obama's complexion in a video ad or, alas, when TIME ran a deliberately darkened photograph of O.J. Simpson on the cover following his arrest in 1994.

Yet while such examples speak to the ongoing problem of racial bias-and how it can be exploited in politics or in the media-the study's authors suggest that these findings, (and perhaps Sammy Sosa's recent effort to lighten his skin), point to a more insidious problem. "Our results suggest that voters themselves may alter how they see a racially ambiguous candidate, depending on their own level of support and their corresponding desire to see the candidate favorably."

The second issue of darkening was done by Time magazine, during the OJ Simpson trial. In Time's review of the PNAS study, it refesr to its own misstep of darkening Simpson's features during the height of the trial. Because of its choice, Time magazine issued a major apology to their readers. The Museum of Hoaxes explains:

Time magazine decided to use this mug shot on its June 27th cover (top), but first they asked photo-illustrator Matt Mahurin to artistically interpret it. Mahurin darkened the photo and reduced the size of the prisoner ID number. Time managing editor James Gaines offered this description of the resulting cover:

The harshness of the mug shot — the merciless bright light, the stubble on Simpson's face, the cold specificity of the picture — had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy. The expression on his face was not merely blank now; it was bottomless.

However, many people responded to the cover far less charitably. Critics charged Time with racism, claiming that by darkening Simpson's features the magazine had emphasized his skin color and gave him a more "menacing" appearance. Benjamin Chavis of the N.A.A.C.P. argued that the cover made Simpson seem like "some kind of animal." Journalists suggested that, since the mug shot was a news photo, it should never have been altered at all.

Unfortunately for Time, its rival Newsweek ran the same mug shot on its cover (bottom) that week, without altering it. The two covers appeared side-by-side on newsstands, making Time's decision to darken the photo far more visible. Time later issued an apology to its readers.

From a purely visual standpoint, darkening someone's features is a standard way to make them look more sinister. If we are presented with a face cloaked in shadow, it's an indication that this is not a person we should trust. However, because race is entangled into so many parts of American life, and so much of American racial history has been based in denigrating those who are dark, and exalting those who are light, actions like darkening a person can be read in many different ways.

Political Partisanship Influences Perception Of Biracial Candidates' Skin Tone [PNAS]
The Politics Of Skin Color[Politico]

Related: Campaign '06: The G.O.P. Gets Nervous In Tennessee [Time]
The Politics Of Perceiving Skin Color [Time]
O.J.‘s Darkened Mug Shot [Museum of Hoaxes]

Miller's ex-fiance, Michael Scanlon, pled guilty to conspiracy charges relating to his business partner, Jack Abramoff, and the man they had both worked for, former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. By then, Scanlon and Miller had broken up, rather dramatically. Miller in Howard Kurtz's profile:

"The day before her bridal shower, Miller says, Scanlon called off the wedding. They reconciled, Scanlon backed out again, and three weeks later he married a 24-year-old waitress from [a] Delaware resort town."

According to a 2006 front page story in the Wall Street Journal, Miller's "jilting" motivated her to help bring down Scanlon, and, by extension, Abramoff and eventually DeLay, who eventually resigned.

Miller is not the most sympathetic character: besides being DeLay's image-maker, she worked as a flack in the State Department in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and defended the Republican rent-a-mobs during the 2000 Florida recount. And yet it's hard not to see how her story — by both her own actions and the way she's been portrayed — has been heavily shaped by her gender. Miller didn't respond to requests for an interview to talk about this aspect of her experience. Still, the whole affair ticks off so many stereotypes that are used against women in public life, and whether or not they're true in this case, they still made me wince. Among them:

1. She's a ballbuster. Kurtz says she got through a job interview for DeLay by telling herself, "Don't show fear." In 2004, Miller famously cut off a video interview with her then-boss, Colin Powell, on Meet the Press, either because it was going long or because Tim Russert was going to ask a hardball question about the rationale for the Iraq war. The Washington Post wrote of Miller at the time:

In just six months on the job, Miller, 33, who controls access to Powell, seems to have made more enemies than usual among the reporters who cover the State Department. "Her manner is brusque, abrasive, demeaning," said one, asking to remain anonymous so as not to be frozen out of interviews with Powell. "She's not doing the secretary a service; she's doing him a disservice."
...

In 2001 Miller was working as press secretary to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay when she lashed into Post Magazine writer Peter Perl while he was doing a profile of her boss, screaming: "You lied! . . . You betrayed him! You twisted his words! . . . We don't know you. You don't exist. . . . You are dead to us." A DeLay spokesman told us yesterday, "Tom thinks Emily did a fine job for him."

2. She's a blabbermouth. Kurtz's profile today:

Miller does have a tendency to over-answer questions. "I just have no filter, and I really need to work on that," she says. "If it's in my head, it comes out of my mouth."

She also claims to have been manipulated by faux-empathy when the FBI craftily sent two female agents to interview her:

The FBI contacted Miller months later and arranged an interview with two young female agents, who questioned her on matters ranging from Scanlon's strange use of different first names to his work for the tribes. Her lawyer had warned her to limit her answers, but Miller says she babbled on after the agents commiserated with her romantic turmoil. The lawyer chided her afterward: "You won't shut up!"

3. She cooperated with the FBI because she's a woman scorned.

This has been the stickiest part of the story. In the thicket of business deals and lobbyist favor-trading, the "hell hath no fury" storyline was certainly sexier and more digestible. It's a retelling that Miller disputes, telling Kurtz, "At the end of the day, what do I get? I get to be known as the woman scorned, forever?"

4. She is (now) needy and vulnerable.

Miller is all about her softer side now. "I was so ambitious in my 20s and early 30s. I worked all the time," she tells Kurtz. "It was all about success and power. Somehow I thought that would make me happy, and make me feel good about myself." Now, she is writing about DeLay returning to Dancing With the Stars and about unabashedly wanting to find a husband.

Miller has also been fighting her portrayal in a new film about the Abramoff scandal starring Kevin Spacey. She tells Kurtz that in the film, "I'm a bitch, I'm materialistic, I'm bad in bed."

Women like Miller test the outer boundaries of my feminist solidarity. Is there evidence that she was not the most discreet or pleasant person to deal with, and that she represented the most machine-like, lobbyist-friendly streak of Washington politics? Yes, very much so. Was her role in the scandal blown out of proportion (Abramoff has blamed her for his jailing) in part because the bitchy, wronged-female revenge narrative was so saleable? Also yes.

In the meantime, Miller says she's tried to start over, this time with "a sense of empathy and compassion for others who are struggling." Everyone deserves another chance, right?

Sideswiped By Scandal, Trapped By the Past [Washington Post]

Related: Behind Unraveling Of DeLay's Team, A Jilted Fiancée [Wall Street Journal]
Fox News: Conservative Women Are More Scrutinized By the Media [Feministing]

Time magazine summarizes this dynamic beautifully: "In the end, all of the tea-party town halls, Glenn Beck rallies and "death panel" rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health-care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war."

The battle over abortion rights is more than a cultural conflict. While politicians choose to position the impact of the amendment differently, it still amounts to a frighteningly blatant assault on women's autonomy. The Time piece sheds some light onto the political wheeling and dealing that led to Stupak:

In mid-June, Stupak and 18 other pro-life Democrats sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi warning that they could not vote for the bill that had been introduced unless it was changed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. (The original health-reform bill introduced in the House contained no reference to abortion, which both pro-life and pro-choice activists read as allowing coverage of abortion through the so-called public option, a government-run alternative to private insurance plans that some individuals and small businesses would have access to.) They received no response.

A month later, five other pro-life Democrats led by Tim Ryan of Ohio sent another letter to Pelosi expressing their concerns as well, but suggesting a compromise to the abortion quandary. This time, Pelosi was interested and she gave Ryan the green light to develop language that ended up known as the Capps amendment, because Lois Capps of California introduced it during the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of health-reform legislation.

The provision extended the decades-old Hyde Amendment prohibitions against funding of abortions through Medicaid and federal employee health plans except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life to the medical care covered under the public option. In addition, Capps put forward a system in which an insurance plan could segregate private funds to pay for abortions from public subsidies, which could not.

At the time, Stupak's opposition to the Capps amendment - he was suspicious of it because it had been drafted without his group's input, by a pro-choice Democrat no less - seemed unimportant. Democratic leaders thought their solution would allow them to cobble together enough pro-life votes, and they were convinced that the amendment had taken abortion off the table.

Indeed, up until the last week before the House vote on health reform, both Pelosi and Stupak thought they each had the votes to get their way on abortion. As a result, when Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat, tried to draft an amendment tightening the Capps language in the last weeks before the House vote, both sides attacked him. Planned Parenthood said the effort, which attempted to strengthen the segregation of funds and ensure that no federal dollars could ever be designated to fund abortions in the exchange, could "tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care." And the Catholic bishops conference issued a memo calling the amendment "not a meaningful compromise."

The one-two punch took the life out of the Ellsworth amendment and denied pro-life Democrats the opportunity to vote for something less extreme than the final Stupak amendment. According to several members who voted for the Stupak amendment, they would have supported a more moderate compromise along the lines of the Ellsworth language if they had been given the chance. As it was, 10 of the 19 Democrats who signed the initial Stupak letter to Pelosi voted against health reform even after their demands on abortion were met.

While I am shaking my fist at my computer screen, Politico lobs this bomb:

Taxpayers currently provide deep subsidies for health insurance plans that cover abortion - a little-recognized fact responsible for much of the angst over an anti-abortion amendment attached to the House health care bill.

Stupak and his allies, including every House Republican, a quarter of the chamber's Democrats and the Vatican, say that it simply extends an existing prohibition on federal funding for abortion - an annually renewed policy called the Hyde amendment - to the health care exchange that would be established for the uninsured under the health care bill making its way through Congress.

But lawmakers who support abortion rights contend that, if the Stupak amendment's logic is extended to the $250 billion in tax breaks Americans get to buy coverage through employer-based plans, it could strip abortion coverage from tens of millions of women who already have it.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the next step beyond Stupak for the anti-abortion movement will be to make sure that "if that federal wand has been waved over your insurance, then you don't get to get abortion coverage.

All of this calls Obama's motives into question - how does one "maintain the status quo" when we are obviously upending the status quo in favor of this craptacular amendment? Still, there are some who believe that this type of trade would have little impact on the day to day lives of women in America.

The New Republic calculates how many women would be heavily impacted by the amendment:

How many women would the Stupak amendment affect? It wouldn't immediately impinge on the roughly 60 million women ages 18-64 who presently get health insurance through their jobs or their spouses' jobs rather than Medicare. At least in the short term, nothing would change for these women because they wouldn't receive any federal funds. But most of them aren't reimbursed for abortion coverage under the current system. There's a debate about how many private health care plans cover abortion—estimates have ranged from 46 percent to nearly 87 percent. But, regardless of the number, the Guttmacher Institute found that only 13 percent of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies. Some women may have filed for reimbursement on their own; others may have been reluctant to file claims because they didn't want their employers or spouses to know they had abortions; and other women were uninsured. Nevertheless, 74 percent of women who had abortions paid for them out of pocket.

That doesn't mean the Stupak amendment would maintain the status quo on abortion funding. It would restrict the choices of women who buy private health insurance on the new health-insurance exchange designed to provide affordable coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, 21 million Americans will buy insurance through the exchange by 2019. This group will include some of the 17 million women, ages 18-64, who are currently uninsured (and, obviously, don't receive any abortion coverage) and some of the 5.7 million women currently purchasing coverage through the market rather than through employers—including self-employed and unemployed women, and those whose jobs don't offer benefits.

It's some subset of this last group—the women who switch from private plans that now cover abortion to private plans on the federal exchange—who would be most affected by the changes. The overwhelming majority of people who buy private insurance on the exchange will be receiving federal affordability credits, and the Stupak amendment says that, if you receive a federal subsidy, you can't buy insurance that covers abortion. (The amendment allows women who are farsighted enough to plan for unplanned pregnancies to buy a single-service abortion-insurance "rider," but, in practice, past experience suggests these riders won't be readily available.) "The bottom line seems to be that abortion coverage, if it exists at all on the exchange, will be rare," says Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute. This may not be a great financial burden for the majority of women who have first-trimester abortions, which are relatively cheap—in 2006, the average cost of a first-trimester abortion was $413—but it could represent a more serious burden for women who have later-term abortions, which are more expensive.

(While much has been made of the 13% statistic, it is important to note that the Guttmacher institute disagrees with any framing of the statistic that would result in reducing the availability of abortion services and coverage. In a press release, they said: "Guttmacher's 13% statistic, therefore, should not be cited as evidence that insurance coverage for abortion is not widespread or to suggest that restricting such coverage would have an impact on only a small minority of women." While the TNR piece above states some of the Guttmacher caveats, the statistic is still what gets the most play.)

The most sensible take on the whole debate comes from this week's New Yorker, where Jeffrey Toobin puts our current bout of conservative hysterics into historical context:

Abortion is almost as old as childbirth. There has always been a need for some women to end their pregnancies. In modern times, the law's attitude toward that need has varied. In the United States, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were both legal and commonplace, often performed by midwives. In the nineteenth century, under the influence of the ascendant medical profession, which opposed abortion (and wanted to control health care), states began to outlaw the procedure, and by the turn of the twentieth century it was all but uniformly illegal. The rise of the feminist movement led to widespread efforts to decriminalize abortion, and in 1973 the Supreme Court found, in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution prohibited the states from outlawing it.

Throughout this long legal history, the one constant has been that women have continued to have abortions. The rate has declined slightly in recent years, but, according to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-five per cent of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they are forty-five. It might be assumed that such a common procedure would be included in a nation's plan to protect the health of its citizens. In fact, the story of abortion during the past decade has been its separation from other medical services available to women. Abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.

It is being marginalized, and the sad part is that the effort is working - instead of looking at abortion as a part of medical coverage, we have allowed all kinds of political and religious posturing that do not contribute to the ultimate goal of health care reform: to improve access to care and coverage, not to create new restrictions. Toobin continues:

Yet it's not only with regard to insurance that abortion services are being treated like a second-class form of medicine. There is, for instance, the proliferation of "conscience clauses," which allow medical professionals to refuse to conduct procedures that they disapprove of. Shortly after Roe, Congress passed the first major conscience clause, which stated that medical professionals and hospitals that receive certain federal funds did not have to provide abortions or sterilizations if they objected on "the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions." The Bush Administration sought to dramatically expand the clauses to cover not only doctors and nurses but anyone who works in a hospital, including pharmacists, and to increase the range of practices that might be rejected-a step that could potentially include such services as the dispensing of birth control. President Obama has said that he will revise or overturn the policy.

The President is pro-choice, and he has signaled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment. But, like many modern pro-choice Democrats, he has worked so hard to be respectful of his opponents on this issue that he sometimes seems to cede them the moral high ground. In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he describes the "undeniably difficult issue of abortion" and ponders "the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion." Elsewhere, he announces, "Abortion vexes." The opponents of abortion aren't vexed-they are mobilized, focused, and driven to succeed.

Toobin's conclusion is one we would all do well to remember:

Every diminished of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.

Abortion fight is excuse to kill reform, Pelosi says [Politico]
Can the Dems Overcome Their Abortion Split on Health Care? [Time]
Abortion deal spins a very tangled web [Politico]
Stupak is as Stupak Does [The New Republic]
Misuse of Guttmacher Statistic on Insurance Coverage of Abortion [Guttmacher Institute]

It was incredibly wishful thinking to imagine that Palin would disappear after the 2008 election; if anything she's only gotten bigger, as scandal and insanity have marked most of her 2009, and her book, her attempt at getting her side of the story out there, only provides her with a greater platform to tour the country, reenergize her fans (and she does have many, many fans) and continue providing those of us who aren't particularly fond of her or her politics with reasons to instinctively type "Why won't she go away!??!" in the comments each time her name is mentioned. But we really should know better; Sarah Palin isn't going away. Not anytime soon. And to ignore her, as lovely as that might be, is to ignore the politics and the mindset she represents, and frankly I think it's always better to know what the other side is up to.

In today's Sarah Palin news, the former Governor has decided to attack the AP for daring to fact-check her book by posting a scathing screed on her Facebook page. Yes, I know, it's Sarah Palin Facebook page. I'm sure there are better Facebook stories you'd rather hear about, like how your Mom just watered something in Farmville or how Becky Stupinara from 7th grade is marrying Alan, that kid who ate thumbtacks at lunch. But we're going to talk about it, because it's a bit insane and includes hilarious quotes like this:

Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released. They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards. We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research! Imagine that – 11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to "fact check" what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing.

We'll keep setting the record straight, and we'll keep reminding some in the media that Americans are very tired of their non-objective reporting. A great, recent post that accomplishes this is a Conservatives4Palin post. It's got some nice fact checking included. As always, they did a great job holding some of the media accountable for spreading more misinformation and for making things up. You can read it here. Enjoy!

Ah yes. For nothing quite says "unbiased organization" like Conservatives4Palin.

In other Sarah Palin news, Foster at Gawker has a roundup of leaked McCain campaign emails that's worth reading, even if you can't stand her, as it's hard not laugh when you come across an email wherein she declares that Saturday Night Live is "whack." Tomorrow, I'm sure, there will be another Sarah Palin story, or scandal, and the book tour and all that comes with it will roll on, possibly until 2012 or beyond, should Palin decide to run for office again.

It's very easy to brush Palin off, and as evidenced by much of this post, easy to take shots at her logic and style, but it's harder to deny that she still has a way of captivating people's attention, and that she represents something greater and more frustrating than just a book tour or a series of wacky family scandals. When she speaks, there are many people who not only listen, but nod in agreement. The publicity for her book might die down, and Sarah Palin may eventually fade into the background, but the ideas she's pushing probably won't, and that's something we all need to pay attention to.

A Million Little Palinisms: Leaked Emails Already Contradicting The Truth Of Going Rogue [Gawker]
Really? Still Making Things Up? [Sarah Palin]

As activists continue to drum up support to keep the amendment out of the final bill, the rapid splintering of support demonstrates how deeply the worth and value of a progressive reproductive rights platform has been devalued over the years. Politicians have skillfully learned to speak to both belief systems by leaving their words intentionally vague, while knowing that those who want to believe will read into the words and assume a certain position. Politico writes:

By playing down divisions over abortion and emphasizing shared goals - such as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States - members of the president's party have sought to blur the lines of one of the country's most furious and enduring debates.

"They're looking for an easy way out. And there is no easy way out when it comes to right or wrong or true or false," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, an abortion opponent who served as ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton administration. "On some of these issues, there's just no compromise."

The House health care bill wasn't supposed to become a referendum on abortion rights. But Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, reshaped the legislative landscape when he offered an amendment restricting the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange - or to women who receive health care subsidies from the federal government.

The Administration continues to try to hedge its bets, meeting with various groups in hopes of hashing out a compromise. Still, there is the sense that many rank-and-file Democrats feel that this trade is fair.

Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America) and Frances Kissling (former president of Catholics for Choice) outline why this is problematic in an op-ed in today's New York Times:

Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment. They say the tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They say they will fight another day for a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps. But they can't ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women's health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women's rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion's staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.

We are coming close to the point where we are past having faith, and rapidly approaching broken trust. Call it the Wimpy principle. J. Wellingon Wimpy was a character in the old Popeye's cartoon, whose famous line was "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." However, Wimpy was focused on hamburgers, and acquiring as many as possible. When Tuesday rolled around, Wimpy managed to vanish, having never intended to repay the debt.

A coalition fails when members start to wonder when it will be their turn to benefit. And as Democrats went out trying to acquire votes, they started making Tuesday promises. They spoke to as many constituencies as they could find, courting women, racial minorities, gay and lesbian voters by saying they cared about their issues and were willing to fight for their needs - if those people elected them.

So they did, and now they sit and wait.

The Democratic Wimpys these people vote for every few years would do well to remember they have continued to buying them hamburgers, year after year. And they will continue to do so - after the Dems pay what they owe.

'No easy way out' for Democrats on abortion [Politico]
Rahm, Liberal Women's Groups, Have 'Frank Exchange' on Anti-Abortion Amendment [ABC News]
J. Wellington Wimpy [Wikipedia]

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]