Tuesday, February 5, 2008

A Super Tuesday Mantra


SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.

Just keep repeating that when you go to vote, and you'll do the right thing.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

scream !!! :)

An Briosca Mor said...

Here in DC, MD and VA we don't get to vote until next Tuesday. Just wanted to mention that so no one ends up standing in front of their local elementary school for a solid week waiting for the polls to open.

The difference this time around, however, is that by the time we get to vote the nomination might not already be decided. Our votes might really mean something! Unfortunately, though, that messes with my plan to write in Ralph Wiggum, after seeing the January 6th episode of The Simpsons. I'll have to cast a real vote instead, darn it.

Mike said...

This, too, is why you're our minister.

Some of us in Maryland don't get to vote next Tuesday at all -- only Democrats and Republicans do. But if the Democrats manage to avoid nominating anyone who VOTED FOR THE WAR, I won't rule out possibly voting for a Democrat for the first time since the first time I voted in a presidential election.

If I'm not geographically mistaken, Your Reverence has an opportunity to do something even bigger than throw a bit of Maryland's weight around in the presidential primary: you can vote for Donna Edwards in her Dem primary against Rep. Al Wynn (D-Tobacco). He not only VOTED FOR THE WAR, he was one of the 17 House Democrats who voted for Harold Ford (D-Banking) against Nancy Pelosi for (at the time) House minority leader.

Rob said...

Much to my sadness, I was slack and didn't change my party affiliation in time to be able to vote next week. I would have relished the opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton. Obama is in the pocket of the nuclear industry and wouldn't match any meaningful definition of progressive, but at least he didn't VOTE FOR THE WAR.

Richard Cohen's column in the Post today is worth a read, by the way.

T said...

You know what, though? Now, in no way do I think it's ok she voted for the war. And I make no claims to be painstakingly following the the news. But I *have* been watching/reading how she's been portrayed in photos and in news articles, and Rob, you're (probably unwittingly) jumping on the bandwagon that implicitly (and at times explicitly) portrays HC as a harridan, an out-of-control garrulous woman, a ball-breaker. Then there are the articles: every single one I've read about HC on the campaign trail makes some remark that situates her as an embodied woman, but in a negative way--sometimes as "inappropriately" masculine, but more often questioning her power or constitution, as in the article I read this morning that mentioned her hoarse voice. I wouldn't have remarked it, except for the hubbub about her getting emotional, etc. This sort of consistent treatment in the press just DOES NOT happen to male politicians. And how about names? The men are all known by their last names; HC by her first (and I don't think anyone at this stage in the game would be confused by "Clinton").

In addition to being about any number of platform issues, this election is also deeply about male anxieties about powerful women, and about the (to me) inexplicable ways many women take on those anxieties as anti-feminists.

So Rob, I love you dearly, and you are one of the least anxious men I know, but while I find "She voted for the war" a really valid point, prefacing that point with one of the many terrible stills of Clinton brings in the gender issue in a way that makes me squirm, and that surprises me--even though I know that wasn't your intention in posting it.

Sorry for the diatribe, but this aspect of the election is driving me fucking nuts.

Rob said...

No, that absolutely wasn't my intention in posting it. Do you really think that pic is unflattering? I actually kind of like it in itself. (When is the last time you saw any politician who could be that animated?) Of course I was going for a cheap laugh in using it here, much as I've done in the past with Jerry Falwell and Alberto Gonzales.

I'm sick of the MSM's biased and substance-free coverage of HC's campaign too. "Oooh! She has emotions!" "Oooh! There's a picture where she looks kind of old!" "Do you think this will affect how she does in the primaries?" It's useless and insulting to the intelligence of its audience.

I don't think that's what I'm doing in this post. Everybody gets equal treatment here at Vaca Estupenda. If HC were male, I'd still poke fun at her in the same puerile fashion. It's what I do.

Mike said...

Whoa. I voted for Elise Boulding as a write-in the last time I voted in a Democratic primary (1992) because Tom Harkin had already dropped out of the race and everybody else on the ballot sucked. In 2000 and 2004, I voted for presidential tickets that, unlike the Democratic ticket, included women (Nader/LaDuke in 2000 and Cobb/LaMarche in '04). None of those women ever supported any war. Sometimes it really is all about the issues.

If Clinton is the best the Democrats can do, I'll definitely be voting for a woman: Green candidate Cynthia McKinney.

T said...

Oh, I'm all for the cheap laugh :-) It's just that this particular cheap laugh wore off for me a long time ago--back during BC's presidency, in fact.

Now, how about those Hello Kitty butt plugs?

Rob said...

With all love and respect, Tes, you're free to make whatever interpretation you like of what I post here, but you really ought to know me better than that by now. It's a poor sort of feminism that says I shouldn't make fun of a female politician the same way that I've made fun of a male one.

Rob said...

And by the way, I've said this in a private email to Tes, but it deserves mention here as well. I'm getting my first hits from people looking for inflatable butt plugs. Really, when all is said and done, I wouldn't want to live in any other period of history.

T said...

Oh, by saying that cheap laugh wore off for me a long time ago, I don't mean to say that the cheap laugh isn't, or shouldn't be there--just that in this case, I'm not laughing But that's ok--I don't need to be. What I did want to point out, though, is that this particular cheap laugh also has implications that go beyond the hilarity (pun intended), and that those implications are worth thinking about.

For me, the question is less "should you have posted that picture," and more "what does it say that pictures like that of HC abound?" And they do: do a Google image search of Obama, and then one of HC, and compare. I didn't really see any pictures of Obama that looked "unpresidential," but of HC--quite a few, including the one you posted, make her look like a complete maniac. Not all on the first couple of pages, to be sure, but many...but we can be sure that Obama doesn't always look as composed as he's portrayed in the photos that one generally sees (take enough stills of speeches and anyone is going to look crazy, or strident, or just plain unattractive).

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't poke fun, or that poking fun at HC is a feminist issue. But the behavior and biases of the press are, both because they affect public opinion, and because they're created by it.

Rob said...

Fair enough. Just be careful about tarring me with that brush.

It should be pointed out that the non-substantiveness and idiocy of the MSM's coverage of John Edwards certainly rivals the way HC has been treated. It wouldn't be stretching the truth too much to say that Edwards' haircut was his downfall.

An Briosca Mor said...

OTOH, Tes, do a Google search for images of W. That guy never doesn't look stupid (or worse) in photos. But then again, that may just be my own personal bias aboout him weighing in on that.

Re Edwards, I saw a great cartoon the other day that showed Edwards at a mic with a crowd of press surrounding him. The caption was something like "After months of being ignored by the media, John Edwards announced today that he is dropping out of the race."

And finally, I thought I was joking yesterday about people going to the polls a week early. But then I heard a news report saying that there were several hundred people in Richmond who came to their polling place on Tuesday, found no one there, and called the election board or whoever to ask what was going on. I'll refrain though from making any Northern Virginia vs the rest of the state comments here...