According to some polls, Obama is up by over 10 points, and I think the McCain camp is approaching the next two weeks as another opportunity to throw a few Hail Marys: they're throwing up every crazy thing that occurs to them and seeing if anything sticks. For the past few days, that narrative has been that Palin is the "right" kind of feminist, and women who vote for Barack Obama, as well as Obama himself, are the "wrong" kinds of feminists. Women who voted for Hillary Clinton, however, can be the right kinds of feminists but only if they're voting for McCain.

Palin also said yesterday that Obama pays his female staffers less than he pays his male staffers, a claim which will be taken on by Megan later today. Palin said, “I know one senator who actually does pay women equally…That’s something I admire about John McCain. He’s not someone who makes excuses." So I guess he doesn't have an excuse for why he didn't even bother to show up to vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Amendment. And maybe he has an excuse for why he favors the rights of big business over little ladies. If he had been there, McCain said he would have voted against the amendment because it "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems…This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

Catharine MacKinnon, feminist scholar and law professor, used the Lilly Ledbetter situation as an example of why Obama is the way forward for women in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday. Of course, she also mentions abortion access as a major reason women should support Obama. "Since 1980, when the Supreme Court permitted exclusion of medically necessary abortions from Medicaid coverage, poor women (disproportionately women of color) have not had effective access to abortion because they cannot afford it," MacKinnon argues. "This was when many women lost the right to choose."

But Catharine MacKinnon would be supportive of Lilly Ledbetter and poor women getting abortions, 'cause she's one of them "liberal feminists" with their "agendas." What is this liberal feminist agenda that McCain and Palin seem to hate so deeply? Is it just about abortion? Because McCain and Palin at least pay lip service to wanting equal pay. Maybe there's a list of liberal feminist commandments written on hemp with the blood from a diva cup that I'm not aware of, but last time I checked, liberal feminists believe in many different, sometimes conflicting things.

But leave it to McCain campaign manager Rick Davis to explain what liberal feminists really stand for. Apparently they Sarah Palin because she's "very attractive", "very competent" and "very happy." In the clip below, our girl Rachel Maddow sticks it to Davis. "Everyone knows that feminists hate happy women," Maddow says. "And they really hate it when women work!" I know I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore, but I can't believe that the Republican ticket really believes that this divisive, logically inconsistent attack on "liberal feminists" is going to get them any votes.

Palin Criticizes Obama as Faux Feminist [NY Times]
Obama Is the Way Forward for Women [WSJ]
Rick Davis: Palin Drives 'Liberal Feminists' Crazy [Think Progress]

Earlier: Why Sarah Palin's Looks Matter
Meet Lilly Ledbetter. She's A Good Reason To Vote Against John McCain

"Feminism has been suffering an identity crisis for years, and it's only gotten worse during the 2008 election cycle," Lantham says. "Frustratingly, no clear leader from the third wave has emerged to lead women out of the void…the third-wavers are lacking the vision to grab the keys to the throne…The leaders of the third wave seem to keep saying the same thing. We get it: women enjoy sex just as much as men. Isn't there something more profound you'd like to promote?"

Frustratingly, Lantham is completely off the mark. First of all, the reason "no clear leader" from the third wave has emerged, Steinem-like, from the so-called ashes of the second wave, is because the feminist battle in the aughts is a much more subtle fight. In the 60s, feminists raged against some very real, very crippling sexism. They weren't allowed to participate in many businesses and weren't taken seriously in many arenas, and discrimination against women was not only legal, it was acceptable. While it's undeniable that sexism continues to exist (and be accepted), because women superficially have all the rights of men, fighting sexism is a far more amorphous battle. One could argue the same thing for racism. Obviously racism still exists, but where's Generation Y's Martin Luther King or even Jesse Jackson? There isn't one, because it's difficult to rally people around a cause when the problem — discriminating against people because of the color of their skin — is technically illegal.

Secondly, it's insulting, and completely incorrect, to say that third wave feminists are only concerned with sex. Really Robert? Do you actually read, say, Feministing, Jezebel or any other pro-female site on a regular basis? Because if you did, you'd realize that we talk about sex maybe 5% of the time, if that. We pay more than fleeting attention to some very "second wave" problems like sexual harassment in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and sexism in the media. And even though there is no single feminist who is as publicly prominent as Steinem once was, I can name several young feminists who are making waves in discourse: Ariel Levy, Jennifer Baumgardner, and Jessica Valenti among them.

Finally, reducing third wave feminism to sex positivity betrays a lack of understanding of third wave feminism. What are his criteria for third vs. second wavers? Chronological age? Because it's obviously not ideology alone. "In the presence of this void that Sarah Palin has risen from the flames of the second- and third-wavers. The torch has been dropped, setting the whole damn succession ablaze," Lantham argues. But he's ignoring the fact that it's potentially positive that feminism is no longer a monolith. Sarah Palin has risen because John McCain promoted her in a jarringly pandering move to appeal to evangelical Christians. It has nothing to do with the lack of a single, unifying feminist doctrine.

The one place I could argue that there is a real chronological break between feminists is in their fear of Palin's fumbles. In one corner, we have Rebecca Traister representing the third wave. She doesn't feel sorry for Palin because Palin is a grown woman who got herself into this mess. In the opposite corner, representing the the second wave, is Slate's Emily Bazelon, who worries that Palin's gaffes will prove to the country that women are not competent enough for the highest office. "Palin won't bust through the ceiling that has Hillary's 18 million cracks in it. She'll give men an excuse to replace it with a new one," Bazelon posits. Maybe it's naively third wave of me, but I think the country is beyond thinking that one unqualified woman ruins everything for all women in general.

Macho Ma'am [Radar Online]
The Un-Hillary [Slate]
Poll: Palin Less Popular With Women Voters Than With Men [Time]