DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS

As we say here in Carolina, HAIL YEAH!!!


From NBC NEWS:

Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News

In a landmark ruling for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. It said that the law amounted to the “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.” In a separate case, the court ruled that it could not take up a challenge to Proposition 8, the California law that banned gay marriage in that state. That decision means that gay marriage will once again be legal in California.

That decision was also 5-4, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act means that the federal government must recognize the gay marriages deemed legal by the states — 12 plus the District of Columbia, before the California case was decided. The law helps determine who is covered by more than 1,100 federal laws, programs and benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” the ruling said. It added that the law was invalid because there was no legitimate purpose for disparaging those whom states “sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

President Barack Obama, in a post on Twitter, said that the ruling was a “historic step forward for #MarriageEquality.”

Kennedy was joined in the majority by the four members of the court’s liberal wing, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Dissenting were Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Scalia, in his dissent, wrote: “We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”

Cheers went up outside the Supreme Court, where supporters of gay marriage waved signs, rainbow banners and flags with equality symbols.
The ruling comes as states are authorizing gay marriage with increasing speed and with public opinion having turned narrowly in favor of gay marriage. Under the law, gay couples who are legally married in their states were not considered married in the eyes of the federal government, and were ineligible for the federal benefits that come with marriage.

The case before the Supreme Court, U.S. v. Windsor, concerned Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple who lived together in New York for 44 years and married in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was hit with $363,000 in federal estate taxes. Had the couple been considered by the federal government to be married, Windsor would not have incurred those taxes. Kennedy, in the ruling, said that New York’s decision to authorize gay marriage was a proper exercise of its authority, and reflected “the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.”

President Bill Clinton signed the act into law in September 1996. A court ruling in Hawaii had raised the prospect that that state might become the first to authorize gay marriage.

At the time, some members of Congress believed that the Defense of Marriage Act might be a compromise that would take the air out of a movement to amend the Constitution to block gay marriage.

LOLGOP just Tweeted: "Life would be so much better if Antonin Scalia just had a blog."

Ain't it the truth. Today, however, he just has to stand aside and DEAL WITH IT. Let the preachers all go cover themselves in ashes and sackcloth and REPENT--because their grandchildren will be as ashamed of them as southern white kids are now ashamed of their racist segregationist grandparents.

We will be covering this on our radio show today, so stay tuned.

Democratic Convention update

At left: Ten undocumented immigrants arrested at demonstrations outside the Democratic National Convention. This protest was the end-point of the UNDOCUBUS journey across the USA. Photo from the Village Voice.





The Democratic Convention continues, with few arrests--although there have been some. As I said previously, I was worried. There have been demonstrations, but nothing too disruptive.

Former President Bill Clinton wowed the audience last night, making folks nostalgic for Clintonian America; Democratic delegates openly confessed that they wish they could vote for him instead of Obama. (Transcript of Clinton's speech)

Mr Daisy dislikes the conventions and opted to watch DVDs of "The Office" instead. I think he prefers the old-style conventions, wherein the major networks actually broadcasted endless rules-discussions and other such wonky, procedural, political in-group activities. It somehow made you feel like you really were being represented and that your state's delegates, of both parties, were there to choose what was best for you. Now, it's mostly just razzle-dazzle and teleprompter-speeches, already market-tested for the masses. No surprises, and consequently, no fun.

Michelle Obama's speech was judged by the mass media as a big hit. The notable exception would be (big shocker) Fox News viewers. Daily Kos reported on the nasty racism in the comments on the Fox News website. No exaggeration either, I went over there and looked, and there are many more, and far worse. What particularly surprised me (but not really) is the fact that Fox webmasters did not close the thread down, and didn't seem at all worried by how bad this makes their viewers look. As I wrote in comments here, racism IS profitable, despite what some conservatives claim, i.e. a return to Jim Crow is somehow not possible in our (cough) racially-enlightened times. Of course it is. (And therefore, when anyone talks seriously about repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act? They are either stone-cold racists, incurably naïve or simply NOT PAYING ATTENTION.)

As Ezra Klein noticed, the huge change in Democratic Party strategy has been: the Democrats are reclaiming Obamacare. YES, universal medical care IS a winning policy, and it is about time somebody said so. Several convention speakers have openly used the term "Obamacare"--which ironically started out as a Republican put-down. The new theme is, OBAMA CARES about you, as Mitt Romney only cares about the rich, like himself.

I guess we'll find out how well this works?

As for me, as my readers know, I love me some class warfare. When conservatives accusingly howl, "CLASS WARFARE!" as if its an insult, I never get it. When *I* am accused of it, I always say "Thank you!"--since of course, it's totally necessary and we certainly can't have enough of it. What is the intended insult, exactly? FAIRNESS IS GOOD. ROBIN HOOD WAS RIGHT. If you don't like that, move to Switzerland with the rest of the tax exiles, and take Mitt with you.

I hear he already has a bank account set up over there, so he and the misses will be just fine.

They can sublet their expensive houses. Most of us could support our whole families on the rents from the sublets, alone.

~*~

Yesterday, I enjoyed my 82nd viewing (give or take) of Suddenly, Last Summer. Just so amazing... and my previous post about the movie is here.

Speaking of which, its way past time to link myself! I often forget to do it.

[] I neglected to mention my own blogular accounts of protesting at the Democratic and Republican Conventions in 1980, one of which was linked on Wikipedia (((preen))), so here they are: Republican Convention in Detroit, Democratic Convention in New York.

[] And here is my official BACK TO SCHOOL POST, for all of you exhausted parents out there.

I continue to get positive and affirming feedback about this story, years after I first wrote it. I have received emails as well, lamenting similar GIANT SCHOOL PROJECTS on similar-sized ping-pong tables, sometimes offering detailed descriptions: One mom described a Confederate battlefield, complete with miniature Rebel-battle-flags and toy cannons; another teacher on a forum I visit, relating the same about a detailed Napoleonic display.

All of the (historically-accurate) uniforms carefully sewed onto the teeny-tiny soldiers, some with itsy-bitsy brass buttons.

The mind boggles.

Political Animals

I was really disappointed in Political Animals on the USA network. I had been looking forward to it, and then... pfffft. Awful. Did someone fall asleep while writing the script or what? (How do you get hired to write that stuff, anyway? Maybe I should send them a resume; apparently, they are hiring entry-level screenwriters at USA.) Sigourney Weaver, usually very good at sarcasm and power-tripping games, was a tremendous letdown. She seems to have phoned in her lines. I could do as well, and so could you.

The story is a juicy one. It's all about an ambitious, take-no-prisoners, ex-president's wife named Elaine Barrish, who is now the Secretary of State.

Gee, wonder who that's about?

And maybe that was the problem. They didn't know whether to "evoke" Hillary (see above link, wherein Weaver equivocates on the subject matter) or just "recreate" a Hillaryesque character. Is she a good witch or a bad witch? They don't seem to be able to make up their minds, and the screenplay veers indecisively back and forth. As a result, they can't really take any meaningful stand. It therefore turns into just another soap opera, this one set in Washington, D.C.

At one point, Weaver/Hillary/Elaine delivered what I think was supposed to be a heartfelt monologue about her convictions, and it just rang false. This savvy, cutthroat politician who craves power, suddenly cares all about the little people? Well, maybe so--that is the very definition of "complex"--isn't it? But Weaver failed to deliver on this emotional complexity and seemed to be reciting hackneyed lines that had just been given to her five minutes previously. Awful. Avoid, avoid. Do not be taken in by the commercials, which are pretty good. (In fact, whoever made the bang-up commercials should be assigned the overhaul of the whole series, but I doubt that will happen.)

Besides Weaver phoning it in, they have Ciarán Hinds, an Irish actor, playing the character based on Bill Clinton (here named Bud Hammond). They couldn't find a SINGLE SOUTHERN ACTOR? Because Hinds' southern accent is one of the worst I have heard since Jane Fonda in Otto Preminger's feverish Hurry Sundown. Are they kidding with that? It was atrocious, insulting and utterly cringe-inducing. Where exactly in the south is he supposed to be from? (Answer: North Carolina) More like Nowhere-in-the-Real-South, USA.

And it's also notable they turned Bud into Elaine's EX husband. Why? So she could make sardonic little jokes about his legendary "other women" without any moral discomfort from the audience. And then Bud and Elaine can meet each other in a motel room, post-divorce (as Secret Service agents wink knowingly at each other and at us) and it really isn't considered wrong. Or something. The fact is, the Clintons are NOT divorced, and showing reality the way it really is, would have been far more honest (and less like hedging your bets).

Further, the "scandal" of one of Elaine's sons being a suicidal druggie (borrowing from the Kennedys now) would be regarded as a scandal for a good feminist reason: one explosive, nasty charge often leveled against ambitious women (across the political and occupational spectrum) is that they are lousy/absent mothers. THIS is why such a story might be covered up by Hillary's people, as well as the stigma surrounding addicts and addiction in general. And yet, neither of these reasons was seriously addressed by the show--that would get too (haha) POLITICAL, and soap opera is obviously where they are going with this.

Too bad. They missed a great opportunity. I will stay with the series, just to see what happens (I like soaps as much as the next person), but I hope Weaver is given the script a whole week in advance next time and/or stops reading cue cards. And please, better scripts? Please? Witty banter and snappy comebacks doesn't seem like a lot to ask from writers accustomed to making six figures.

Or maybe its always risky to try to dramatize politics. SOMEBODY might get offended and networks seek as many viewers as possible. Again, that's too bad. Offending people means you have made an impact and actually matter.

Nobody can be too offended by a soap opera.

From Brooklyn to Bob Jones University...

I was attempting to psychoanalyze the tea-partiers, when someone helpfully Twittered this article from New York magazine, titled Clash of the Bearded Ones, Hipsters, Hasids, and the Williamsburg Street.

All I could say was: Whoa.

Simply change the names of the principle protagonists, and it could be right here in Greenville; instead of "Hasids"--insert "Bob Jones University"--and you have the ongoing Culture War of Greenville. It's utterly amazing how little difference there is between the two groups, right down to the clothes.

Fundamentalists have so much in common, regardless of the religion in question.

Like the Brooklynites, we also have the situation of the new arrivals... the oodles of mega-trendy folk moving into lofts converted from old textile and cotton mills. Who worked in those mills? The BJU people's kinfolks, that's who. As I also wrote here, it can be particularly galling to be called a redneck and priced out of the town you built, as well as the actual neighborhood you grew up in. This feud is also about class and class-mobility; global vs local, and a host of other issues.

As my regular readers know, I dislike the Bob Jones people, and I doubt I'd get on any better with the Hasids. But they were there before anyone else... and I think that does count for something. (We seem to believe that it does count when discussing Native Americans, but not when discussing fundamentalists who have lived in one locale for a long period, and made said locale the desirable location it has now become.)

From the article:

The hipster incursion began in the late nineties and was first written off as a fluke—some strangely dressed types poking around the abandoned warehouses and factories. The initial reaction, says Isaac Abraham, who has lived in the neighborhood for 58 years after emigrating from Austria (“Schwarzenegger country!”), was indifference. “Maybe the red carpet wasn’t out for them, but they came in masses and there was no objection from the community. Everybody went on with their daily lives.”

But after a while, says one Hasidic real-estate developer, “People started talking to the rabbis—‘Hey, something’s happening, all these young white people are moving in.’ ” When the Satmars [Brooklyn Hasids] realized that the Artisten—the Yiddish name they used for the bewildering newcomers—were there to stay, something like panic set in. Rabbis exhorted landlords not to rent to the Artisten, builders not to build for them. One flyer asked God to “please remove from upon us the plague of the artists, so that we shall not drown in evil waters, and so that they shall not come to our residence to ruin it.’’ Rabbi Zalman Leib Fulop announced that the Artisten were “a bitter decree from Heaven,” a biblical trial.

Yowza, it's the same language! And the same concept: a war with the Domestic Evildoers.

The hyper-conservative Bob Jones folks (and their fellow travelers) are especially fond of this Old Testament verse: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land."--II Chronicles 7:14.

They wear it on T-shirts and everything. If you were watching the various news networks' coverage of the recent tea-party rally in Washington D.C. (which they memorably held on the 15th anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's terrorist mass murder... aren't they just so cute with that shit?)*... then of course, you saw the t-shirt multiple times.

More from the article:

[In] 2007, came the bike lane, part of a citywide push to make streets more cycling-friendly. As bike lanes go, it wasn’t as plush as the ones springing up in Manhattan these days; it wasn’t even as nice as the one on neighboring Kent Avenue. But Bedford is Williamsburg’s main thoroughfare, and the pathway immediately found a thriving clientele. Morning to night, boys and girls whipped by Hasid minivans on their fixed-gears, hoods and hems flapping, thoughtful produce rattling in the baskets. It’s not that people didn’t bike down Bedford before, but the lane threw them into relief, marked them as a category.

The Satmars were incensed. Hasids are prohibited from looking at improperly dressed members of the opposite sex, and some complained that the women cycling through their neighborhood were an affront. “It’s a major issue, women passing through here in that dress code,” Simon Weiser, a Hasidic member of Community Board 1, told the Post. “Most Hasids have acclimated to living in New York,” says Sholom Deen, a semi-lapsed Hasid who, since 2003, has been publishing a blog called Hasidic Rebel. But each fresh bit of modernism—the Gretsch Building, the bus ads for Sex and the City—tends to touch off an uproar, he says, and the bikes were something new altogether: “It’s a direct intrusion.” The city, having spent $11,000 on the bike lane, appeared to encourage that intrusion, and the cyclists themselves seemed, if not improper, impudent. It felt like a seniority issue. “How long have you lived in the community that you now want to make the rules and totally ignore my opinion, when I’ve lived here for 50 years?” Abraham says. “You just got here. You either offer to help and do as the Romans do, or …”—and here Abraham goes into a spirited, if odd, impression of a spoiled young man—“ ‘I live here now. I lived here for ten years, and now I’m going to make rules for the entire community!’ ”

For a full year, the city seemed to ignore the hipster-Hasid war. Then, on December 1, 2009, came a sudden announcement. The Department of Transportation—under Janette Sadik-Khan, the bike-friendliest commissioner it’s ever had—was going to rip up “a small portion” of the lane between Flushing and Division Avenues, fourteen blocks in all. The deal to remove the lane is said to have been quietly brokered as far back as last April. Just about everyone’s assumption, including that of more than a few Hasids, is that Michael Bloomberg had needed the Satmars—who tend to vote enthusiastically and in a single block—in the upcoming election and that this was an easy bone to throw them.

On December 1, a crew of municipal workers descended on Bedford, sandblasting the lane and its stenciled biker figures off the asphalt. The next day, a group of three bike activists—Quinn Hechtropf, Katherine Piccochi, and a man we’ll call Ben—had an idea. That Friday night, around 3 a.m., they hit the street with aerosol cans and handmade stencils. According to Ben, more than a few Satmars saw them paint. “As they walked by, I made sure I said hello, explained to them that we’re not vandalizing the street, and asked if they wanted to help,” he says. “At first, they were a little standoffish, but a couple of guys had a sense of humor about it.” But by Saturday, fresh snow covered the group’s efforts, and the painters, encouraged by the adventure’s relative ease and cheered on by myriad bike blogs, decided to finish the job Sunday night.

Yes, a war over a bike lane. (You really need to read the whole thing!) I could easily see the same thing happening over on Wade Hampton Boulevard, which is why there will never be a bike lane over there.

And then, there is this side-account of some guys in a deli:

Right now, on a slow Thursday afternoon, the talk of the deli is Rachel, an 18-year-old Hasidic girl who “went off”—the local term for breaking with tradition.

“She got a huge tattoo,” reports Baruch Herzfeld to a gangly copper-haired cook in full beard and payess.

“No way,” says the cook, ecstatic. “No. Way.”

“Seriously. She shows it if you ask, too. Right here”—Herzfeld points at his thigh. “So fucking hot.”

The cook just grins.

I think this is what strikes abject fear into the hearts of all fundamentalists, and the author of the New York piece, Michael Idov, goes straight for it. I am thinking of that old hippie/biker bumper sticker: We have come for your daughters. Yes, this is the heart of it, and Idov knows it:

Herzfeld grabs his iPhone and opens Facebook, searching for photos of Rachel. The Hasidic Facebook is its own phenomenon, a parallel universe where the prim girls you see on the street in turban hats and snub-nosed forties shoes post their bikini snapshots and glamorously lit studio pictures. Herzfeld enthusiastically scrolls through his four-figure friend list, picking out the hotties for us to look at. “Esther. Hot girl. Her father is super-religious. The interesting part is how many friends they have. Look: 273 friends. Most of them are Hasidic guys.”

...

It is the undercurrent of thwarted lust beneath the Satmars’ pious exterior that’s causing the tension with the Artisten, Herzfeld believes (“Orthodox is you don’t want to look at a girl in a bathing suit. Ultra-Orthodox is you want to close down a beach”). And it’s also what will bring about the sect’s downfall, he says.

Herzfeld is convinced there’s a massive generational split within the Hasidic community...

And for the record, I believe this is true of Bob Jones University also. I've lived here for 22 years, and I've heard a lot of gossip; some of the kids can't wait to break loose, and don't waste any time doing it.

The internal inconsistencies certainly don't help, such as telling the faithful that Catholicism is evil, then paying the Church around a million dollars to get your son a Ph.D. from Notre Dame (?)... or claiming that Mormonism is an evil false gospel, all whilst backing a Mormon for president (?). Bob Jones (like the two Rabbis Teitelbaum of the Brooklyn Hasids) has one standard for himself, and another for the faithful. Very cultish, but seemingly acceptable to the cult. Go figure. One hopes that after awhile, they will wise up.

In any event, I am surrounded by conservatives, and I can feel their hostility towards the hip, young newcomers. I can also feel the derision of the newcomers, as they take for granted the beauty and good manners of the upstate, carefully crafted and cared for by the same people they despise.

Stay tuned, sports fans.




~*~


* Another internal inconsistency: we have tea-partiers claiming to be for law and order (or what Abbie Hoffman used to call Lawn Order), and openly celebrating a mass-murdering terrorist of 168 people. I ask you, would lefties be allowed to say "whoops!" and wink at the camera in the case of such a "coincidence"? Ha, not hardly. Why didn't they change the day of the rally? Obviously, this was intentional. Thank God, Bill Clinton didn't hold back.

Happy Election Day!

At left: Art on Main Street, Greenville, SC, from kids at Mitchell Road Christian Academy.

Aside: I love LARGE photos for my blog, as readers have undoubtedly figured out, and now Flickr has changed it up and I can't seem to upload them any bigger than 240px... does anybody have a clue what's going on? (sigh) This is right after the major hoopla with Blogger's label-limitation (now fixed, I think)... which I was able to find a work-around for. But not this time.

Why don't they just leave well enough alone? If it ain't broke...

~*~

Not much being voted on here in South Carolina (and too bad), but elections are being held throughout the USA. I will be working very late, and will race home to watch election returns, as you should too.

I am totally swamped with work today (here, there and everywhere), and so I've decided to offer a few perceptive links in lieu of my usual scintillating analysis:

The New York Times prognosticates on the election today:

Keep an eye on the spin. If Mr. Hoffman wins in New York, look for conservatives to argue that that the vote is a vindication of the appeal of the populist brand of conservatism pressed by leaders like Ms. Palin. But the way the race has played out in Virginia suggests otherwise. If Mr. McDonnell wins, it will be after having run a race in which he aggressively distanced himself from his history of advocating socially conservative positions. That could suggest Republicans seeking to get back in power in swing states should strike a moderate tone.

The optimal Democratic party outcome is a big win in New Jersey, as well as the 23rd Congressional district in New York. The Times believes even winning just New Jersey would likely be greeted with huzzahs for Democrats--particularly as Virginia has practically been written off.

Stay tuned, sports fans!

Civil rights, but just for me, an astute reflection on Mohatma Gandhi by Tami at Racialicious; required reading. Also, check the commentary.

Maggie Gallagher, subject of considerable fulminating at this blog, is at it again. SOMEBODY shut her up please. (I thought the Apostle Paul told women to learn silence in all submission? Why do these conservatives so publicly pick and choose their Bible verses, when they claim righteous fidelity to the whole thing? In short, SHUT UP, MAGGIE.)

Racial disparity: All active ethics probes focus on black lawmakers:

The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.

Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise.

Read it all and be aware.

Alter-Net asks the pertinent question Will a Racial Divide Swallow Obama?:

On October 29, Gallup reported responses to the question: "Do you think that relations between blacks and whites will always be a problem for the United States or that a solution will eventually be worked out?" Responses reflected patterns similar to 1963, with 40% of Americans expecting race always to be a problem. And though black Americans had become more optimistic a year ago, they are now significantly more pessimistic about race in America.

These Gallup findings mirror decades of public opinion research showing that African Americans and whites differ dramatically on their perception of the existence of discrimination, and in their assessment of the potential for realizing a racially fair society. These differing perceptions of racial discrimination translate into enormous gaps in support for public policies. These gaps have effectively stymied effective coalitions for progressive policies for decades.

Read it all. Among interesting info, I had no idea African-American approval ratings for Bill Clinton were SO high...

Emma Ruby-Sachs writes at HuffPo about Obama and LGBT Rights: A Year Since Election Day.

UK Police Spying Began With Animal Rights Activists Then Expanded to Other Groups... and where have we heard THAT modus operandi before? I'd say they've been studying the history of the 70s Left in the USA: we start with drugs, then branch out.

Environmental activists, antiwar activists, animal rights activists and many more groups have been targeted. Specifically, police have gathered personal information on thousands of activists who simply attend protests or political meetings, and created massive national databases.

Deja Vu all over again!

A lovely girlhood friendship recalled by Natalia. This made me smile today. (Ignore the troll; for some unfathomable reason, Natalia attracts them like flies to a county fair lemonade-stand.)

Your daily dose of cute, comes from Vanessa's sweet sparkly fairy princess. :)

Novenas sent to heaven for good results today... if you are in a jurisdiction voting today--VOTE VOTE VOTE! (early and often!)

We love Sonia!--and other ruminations on a young presidency

After all the fervid Obama-blogging I did during election season, I deliberately laid off after Inauguration Day. I wanted to give him a 100-day break, like (haha!) everybody else was. Or was supposed to. Or something.

Like I said, haha. Nobody else did. I felt like he got maybe a 48-hour honeymoon period with the press, if that long.

Primarily for this reason, I extended my hands-off policy even longer, pausing only to criticize the president's rather uncharitable attitude towards freeing the weed. I was floored that Obama wasn't getting the "honeymoon" that other presidents have enjoyed (which they have historically used to "coast" for their first year or so). And then I realized, this is different; times are currently quite disastrous and all bets are off.

And then there is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is habitually examined microscopically in a manner I can recall no other modern president perpetually and constantly inspected...with the exception of the post-Watergate Richard Nixon (who approved a criminal break-in and thus deserved to be closely-inspected). But Obama? Why is everyone so panicked and seemingly afraid he is going to screw the pooch?

Certainly, it seems obvious that the pooch was already royally screwed by Dubya, who seemed utterly free of any similar close inspection. But much of the microscopic-inspection that should have been directed at Dubya, is now directed at the successor who is attempting to clean up his considerable mess.

And so, I have now decided to jump in and reassert my support for the prez, which is not to say he can't do some serious pooch-screwing of his own, and I suppose he will at some point. All politicians do, after all. (Old bumper sticker: To err is human, to really screw things up takes a politician.) But so far, I am not teeth-gnashingly livid over anything he has done. Bill Clinton used to make me livid with his very predictable Bubba-routine, which I found just too close for comfort. (I had a Bubba-boss for part of that time, which made it significantly worse... familiarity breeds contempt!) As a feminist, I also greatly resented the fact that Slick Willie could not keep his hands to himself. (After hearing the story of Kathleen Willey, whom I found very credible, I would not defend Bill Clinton AT ALL.) By contrast, Obama shows no signs of Clintonian excesses, and in fact, comes off as downright ascetic in comparison--with his frequent sports and healthy diet--tobacco appears to be his only vice, which is a relief. (There is some argument about whether he is still smoking; I say, let the man have a vice, people!)

I am pissed off about Obama's whole Afghanistan adventure, however. The left, as a rule, has been far too easy on him about this, as Tom Hayden writes in AlterNet today. Peter Rothberg in THE NATION states that only 0.6% of military-oriented media coverage is about Afghanistan in particular (!) and most of the American public is pro-intervention in the region. (But if there was more detailed media coverage, would that change?) There was a "national day of action on Afghanistan" last Thursday, but MoveOn did not participate, and most people I know were not even aware of it.

Regarding Afghanistan, we need to keep the heat on.

~*~

One thing our new prez has done is... NOMINATE A WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT!!!! (((happy dance)))) Yes, this carries serious weight with me, folks. You bet it does!

And Sonia Sotomayor is making the GOP-baddies go crazy... tee hee! Politico reports:

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was the latest and most powerful blow in the president’s relentless courtship of Hispanic Americans, whose flight to the Democratic Party was central to his election.

Hispanic leaders across the country, many of whom attended the White House announcement, praised the appointment swiftly and in the strongest terms, and Republican leaders signaled an awareness of the political sensitivities by avoiding any suggestion of disrespect for the first Latina nominee to the nation’s highest court.

“The picture of an African-American president standing next to a Hispanic woman as his first choice for the Supreme Court — that picture is the worst nightmare for the Republican Party,” said Fernand Amandi, a Florida pollster whose firm, Bendixen Associates, surveyed Hispanic voters for Obama’s presidential campaign.

“The numbers, the symbolism and now the acts of the Democratic Party and this Democratic president underline and underscore the very bleak outlook for Republicans, where the…fastest growing demographics in the county are leaving them,” he said, noting that surveys earlier this decade suggested broad hunger among Hispanic voters for a court pick.

Jeanne Cummings reports that the right-wing is mobilizing, but confused and disoriented:

Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right.

The early fissure among opponents to Sotomayor, the New York federal appeals judge nominated by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, is over whether to push for a filibuster.

“The Republicans have got to take a stand on this one,” said Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of a filibuster. “If they don’t, they can kiss their chances of ever getting back into power away,” he added.

Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, is urging members to block a Senate vote on Sotomayor.

“Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe[v. Wade] judge?” asked Terry, who argued that Democrats — including then-Sen. Obama — opened the door to such action after threatening to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination in 2005.

And Holly gets right to the point over at Feministe:

Sotomayor grew up in the housing projects of the South Bronx, was raised by a single mother after the death of her father, is a diabetic, a Catholic, and is divorced with no children. Obama described her life as an “extraordinary journey,” talking about how she graduated at the top of her class from Princeton and then Yale Law School.

You might be wondering why I rattled off a laundry list of her life experiences, or what you might call identity categories. Two reasons: first, her career has been batted around for years by feuding Democrats and Republicans because she’s a woman of color. Once she made the short list for an Obama nomination, the rumors and sniping started up again. What, she doesn’t have any kids? Not only that, but some people think she’s fat. Or are even spuriously linking her weight to her diabetes.

Get ready for a whole season of this kind of thing as her nomination is challenged.

Also check out Jill's post at Feministe, as well as nojojojo's and Ampersand's posts at Alas, a Blog.

I am just so proud of Obama right now. And wonderful Sonia too, of course!

Hillary Clinton's DNC speech

What did you all think of Hillary's speech at the Democratic Convention last night? Who watched, who didn't? Speak up!

I hardly know what to think about the whole thing. My initial reaction is that the entire convention so far has been decidedly lackluster. Polls are down. It just looks haphazard... which is not a good thing to communicate to the voters. I watched four different networks last night, and came away with the same conclusion.

Roger Simon, at Politico, writes:

At her speech to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, Hillary said the right things. Nobody could accuse her of going overboard, but she said the right things.

“Barack Obama is my candidate,” she said. “And he must be our president.”

Her daughter introduced her on stage as “my hero” and her husband cheered her from the balcony. But she directed many of her remarks to her other die-hard supporters.

“To my supporters, my champions — my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits — from the bottom of my heart: Thank you,” she said. “You never gave in. You never gave up. And together we made history.”

It was history. Of a sort. She showed that a woman could win the nomination. But she did not win the nomination. And the guy who did made some history, too.

She is due respect nonetheless. But there is a point when a demand for respect turns into an aura of entitlement. And some have been acting as if it were preordained that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination this year — she was the candidate of inevitability, after all — and that somehow Barack Obama stole it from her.

True, if it had been a normal presidential year, Clinton would have been the nominee. She certainly was no worse a candidate than Mike Dukakis, John Kerry or Al Gore, all of whom won their party’s nod.

But it was not an ordinary presidential year. Clinton came up against a magnetic campaigner with a compelling message — change — and with a staff that was prepared to win a drawn-out, deep in-the-trenches battle for delegates.

And the hard truth is that, while Hillary became a first-rate campaigner in the end, she put together a second-rate campaign. And this was not a year when second rate was going to do.

As I mentioned previously, I am guest-blogging at FEMINISTE, where there is presently an open thread on the conventions, particularly discussing Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama. Polerin writes:

Michelle’s speech was smooth but left me pretty much untouched because, as Cara said, it was a “see, we’re an all-american family, too!” effort. It was strong and well delivered, but was far more focused on humanizing the Obama’s than on politics or what she personally cares about. It is sad that they have to spend so much time breaking down the wall of otherness that has been erected around them by rumor and fear, but I understand they do.

Planet Janet replies:

It’s too bad there’s so many groups springing up for Hillary voters that won’t vote for Obama. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much is being stoked by Republicans. I know they’d love almost nothing more than for every Clinton voter to question voting for Obama this November.

Also, there are some great observations at Feministing. Supersarah says:

unfortunately, i think HRC could tattoo "i support Barack Obama" on her forehead, and the MSM would still describe her as "bitter" and "divisive"...

Vertigo says:

I have always been a Hillary Clinton fan and seeing her today... it was just brilliant. I hope all the negative talks about her not being a team-player and her dividing the party stops, because she really nailed this speech.

Also, she did something that has not been done in full force in this convention -- attack McCain!

The video intro got me teary eyes. :)

Crooks and Liars also has a fascinating thread about the speech. Many believe that Hillary MUST campaign for Obama to solidify and reinforce her message of last evening. Pissed-off Patricia (whose comments I always look forward to!) remarks:

Not to offend a single soul, but whoever said that, leading the democratic party was like herding cats, was so right. We come out of the gate and go in every direction. From the speech was useless to the speech was great. There is something good about that. We don’t fall in line, we seek our own path. The good thing is that most of the time we all arrive at the same spot eventually.

Now where is our attack cat/dog? We have Bill and Biden left before tomorrow night when Obama speaks. Bill could do some ripping tonight if his heart is in this thing. He could talk about himself and rip at the same time.

Most comments I have read agree that ATTACKING JOHN McCAIN IS CRUCIAL!!!

As Bill Asshole O'Reilly likes to ask: What say you?

Odds and Sods - Irish brawlers edition

Last night, I attended the Greenville Antiwar Society's candle lighting vigil in Bergamo Square, downtown. This commemorates the 5th year of the war, and every candle bears the name of a deceased American soldier.

There are now 3988 candles, total.

We've been doing it five years now, and the candles just increase. It's so beautiful, one woman said to me, but how sad every candle represents death.

I'll be posting more photos on the 19th, for the Blogswarm Against the War.

~*~

In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd writes the following:

If only they could see things as the president does. Bush, who used his family connections to avoid Vietnam, told troops serving in Afghanistan on Thursday that he is “a little envious” of their adventure there, saying it was “in some ways romantic.”

Do you BELIEVE this guy? (((shakes head in dumbfounded amazement))) I mean, what can one SAY??

~*~

I've just been listening to a self-defined feminist caller on C-Span berate lefty bloggers for criticizing Hillary. Is there no end to this???? Are we NOT ALLOWED to choose another candidate?

And speaking of feminism, are we allowed to point out that much of the "experience" HRC is nattering on about, was as FIRST LADY, an UNELECTED position?

Speaking of Hill, I just got an email from ((dramatic pause!)) ELTON JOHN! Yes, I'm pretty special to rate emails from VIPs, you are thinking. But no, it's just a mass-mailed invitation to Democrats to go to a pro-Hillary concert at Radio City Music Hall; tickets range from $125 up to $2300. If you raise over $10,000, you are invited to a special reception with Elton John and the Clintons. (Doncha love how they say "the Clintons"--while denying they are using Bill's popularity to whip up support for HRC?) I wouldn't be too interested in partying with policy-wonk Hillary, but of course, one can only imagine the parties Bill and Elton have been to; those might be some jolly fun!

~*~

Left: Also, last night, I saw local band SONIC MARVEL at the Gathering Spot (affectionately known as the G-Spot, by locals).

And on a personal note, speaking of the luck of the Irish, my beautiful almost-red-headed grandbaby (age 2 1/2) has chicken pox and an additional ear infection. :( I miss her SO MUCH, I'd gladly nurse her back to health with nary a complaint or hesitation.

Please send all positive thoughts to the Texas Hill Country!

----------------
Listening to: Stiff Little Fingers - Alternative Ulster
via FoxyTunes

Declaring for Obama

No more strategic voting for me, and as I write this, John Edwards has just dropped out of the presidential race, so today I declare for Barack Obama.

I was pretty disturbed by Hillary Clinton's behavior here on Saturday. After losing the South Carolina primary, she hightailed it out of the state:

Clinton Flies as Race Goes to Obama

Updated 7:50 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut

COLUMBIA -- As the race was called, Sen. Hillary Clinton sped to the airport, arriving at 7:15 p.m. She waved wordlessly to ground crew workers on the tarmac as she walked solo up the stairs to the plane, carrying a black handbag. In addition to her aides, her daughter, Chelsea, joined her on board.

By 7:37 pm, Clinton was in the air headed toward Nashville.

Bill Clinton then appeared behind a podium, I think in Myrtle Beach, and started babbling, as Hillary was in the air. I was watching MSNBC, who gave him respectful and uninterrupted attention. I believed, at first, he was actually GIVING Hillary's concession speech. So did several other local people... wait, we thought, what's HE doing? This is Hillary's contest, so what the frack is Bill doing, authoritatively taking the stage and talking about what went right or wrong since the Republicans took over? Are they the glimmer twins again? Who is running for president, anyway, Bill or Hillary? Politico.com writes:

Washington’s liberal establishment — members of Congress, fundraisers and commentators — has coalesced around the view that Bill Clinton is soiling his legacy and wounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects as he rambles around the country in a peevish, piece-of-my-mind monologue ostensibly devoted to helping her win the Democratic nomination.

And that is exactly what kind of monologue it was. Self-indulgent, self-centered, and score-settling. It had little, if anything, to do with Hillary's campaign; it was all about Bill.

Isn't everything about Bill?

Can she control him? Because it certainly didn't look like it. Are they running as a TEAM? Because while I am riveted by the opportunity to vote for a woman, I am far less riveted by the specter of Don't Cry for Me Argentina, which has always been lurking in the shadows. This is, after all, an ex-president's WIFE. This is a woman whom we called First Lady. She was not an elected politician until relatively recently. Up to now, I could make my peace with that, since I realize all women in male-supremacist societies do whatever we need to do to take the reigns of power. But that means: take the reigns. Do not waffle. Do not cower. Do not allow the hubby to monologue while you are in the air, giving the impression that he is doing the heavy lifting. Do not use him as a pit bull to attack the black candidate; learn to attack him yourself. If you can't, you don't belong in politics.

I am not voting for a team. I am voting for one person, whom I hope is a grown-up and does not need sugar-daddy to rescue her whenever she finds herself in a tight spot. She needs to be able to put on her big-girl panties and deal with whatever comes her way. As president, things will get plenty hairy on a regular basis--does she intend to call in Bill every time the shit hits the fan?

Is he going to be the president, or will she be the president? Is this run-for-the-White-House actually all about a covert way for Bill to get back in, via the back door?

I am accusing the Clintons of being disingenuous. I am accusing Hillary of not being able to keep the dog on the porch. In which case, I would say, she is not ready to run the country.

And further, the attacks on Barack Obama by Bill Clinton, pissed me off:

During his presidency, Clinton was buoyed by the overwhelming support of African-Americans, who were indignant at what was being done to someone they regarded as a friend. Now, their support is going overwhelmingly to someone Clinton is trying to beat, and many blacks are indignant at Clinton himself.

Who can say what Clinton’s effect on the campaign trail really is? However much journalistic critics and Obama supporters cringed at Bill Clinton’s performances, they seemed to help Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada.

But those experiences seemed to unleash something more antic and unruly in Clinton’s attacks on Obama and the media, making the Clinton campaign even more about him and less about her. The effect was a bit like a dieter who reads on the Internet that doughnuts are actually good for you.

But the gluttony strategy backfired in the South Carolina primary, and it backfired again in the Kennedy endorsement primary.

In his own career, Clinton’s errors have always been followed by recovery, self-indulgence by self-correction. The next several weeks will determine whether he can follow the same pattern on behalf of his spouse.

Too late for me, sorry. The presidency is not a dress rehearsal. Hillary has proven, to me at least, that she is not ready for prime time.

In this video-clip, Bill goes on for three solid minutes, in an example of what I am talking about. Here is the now-infamous "Shame on you!" footage, as shown originally on CNN and repeatedly shown here throughout the Democratic primary battle in South Carolina:



No thanks.

Go Obama. I put the bumper sticker on my car, and it's official.

Democratic primary eve roundup

Left: Senator Barack Obama at Furman University, Tuesday. Photo from Greenville News.

~*~

What upsets everyone locally is that candidates fight like hell for our votes during the primaries, then ignore us during the general election, when we are written off as a red state. I remember being in Ohio around Halloween, 2004, and I was shocked to get leafleted three times in one day; it was kinda nice to be in an important battleground state near the end of the game.

Then again, if Obama is the nominee, the large black population of South Carolina might up the ante. Would we become a blue state? COULD IT HAPPEN?

It's certainly fun to contemplate.

~*~

As everyone knows, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are at each others' throats, or at least it feels that way. I hate to see Democrats tear each other up during the primary, knowing their words will later be quoted by the Republican nominee.

Nonetheless, Politico's John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei suggest that Obama needs to get rougher:

Imagine if at the next presidential debate Barack Obama — who is agitated about what he calls Bill Clinton’s misleading criticisms — cocked his head, smiled ruefully and, in Reaganesque “there you go again” tones, said something like this to Hillary Clinton: “You know, I admired some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But let’s recall that it was precisely these sort of too-cute-by-half statements that caused him to be reprimanded by a federal judge and stripped of his law license. Senator, you may want to go back to those days and that style of politics, but I think most Americans are ready to move on.”

Had you forgotten that Bill Clinton voluntarily agreed in the closing hours of his presidency to be disbarred and pay a sizable fine in the fallout from the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

No doubt most Democrats have forgotten — which is testament to both Clintons’ indefatigable talent for framing political debates on their terms, rather than those of their opponents.

Obama’s strategists would probably say that engaging a popular former president in such a direct manner might backfire. But recent days would suggest that Obama’s alternative is also backfiring.

He has wandered into a tactical battle — over who is behind what radio ads or robocalls, or over the correct interpretation of stray quotes — with the best tactical politicians in the business. The Clintons have assembled a team that has thought through plausible defenses to virtually every vulnerability. They turned the practice of fast and forceful response into an art form.

Obama seems reluctant to argue with Hillary or Bill. Obviously, he wants to be seen as 'above' that kind of rancorous politics-as-usual. This is all about his time for a change rhetoric. As Harris and VandeHei argue:

[Obama's] vague, spacious rhetoric hardly indicates he has a coherent critique of the Clinton administration or clear ideas about his own alternative. Here is an area where his appeals to a new style of politics could stand more substance.

Is it just rhetoric, or does he really intend to stay above the fray and remain positive?

Obama, however, has flinched from making his Reagan argument in the way that would be required to convince Democrats — by actually making a case about what the Clintons did and did not do the last time they held executive power.

Hillary Clinton has been the beneficiary of Obama’s failure to engage. She has turned the health care reform debacle of the 1990s into an advantage by talking vaguely about how she “wears the scars” of that effort and has returned older but wiser.

But she has never been pressed on the details of that effort — how it was not simply Republicans and insurance companies but senior officials within the Clinton administration such as Lloyd Bentsen and Donna Shalala who recoiled at the process she ran.

Health care is not the only blemish on her decision-making record.

Obama has never insisted that she explain her record in an area in which she had virtually unchallenged authority — staffing the legal apparatus of the first-term Clinton administration.

Hillary Clinton’s decisions led to the appointment of Bernard Nussbaum as White House counsel (fired after a year), and former Rose Law Firm partner Webster Hubbell as a top Justice Department official (forced to resign and later sent to prison).

These colossal misjudgments about personnel should hardly be the sole basis for judging potential as an executive. But they are more relevant than subjects Obama has raised, such as her service in the 1980s on the board of directors of Wal-Mart.

What’s more, it is almost delinquent of Clinton’s Democratic opponents not to ventilate this history and make Clinton defend it before she faces a general election.

As she taunted Obama the other day, “The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything.”

For now, however, it is the Clintons who are on offense and Obama who seems flummoxed in a way that Newt Gingrich would have found familiar. Little wonder that Obama snapped at New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny when he asked, “Are you allowing President Clinton to get in your head?”

A politician who claims he is ready to lead the Democrats into the next decade won’t get there until he figures out how to navigate the most skilled politician of the last decade.

Until very recently, most primary-watchers agreed that Senator Barack Obama had it wrapped up. Now? Totally up for grabs, even the African-American vote. Tuesday, Obama campaigned at Furman University, where Mike Huckabee asked for votes only last week. It was one of the nastiest days of the season, in terms of weather, and he was still able to pack the house quite easily. Hillary left the state earlier in the week to campaign elsewhere, with Bill and Chelsea covering for her. (Obama, of course, has no such powerhouse to campaign for him while he tries to lay groundwork for future primaries.) Short videos here.

Race takes different tone in South Carolina primary
Black voters say issues matter more than skin color
Friday, January 25, 2008

By Ron Barnett
STAFF WRITER, Greenville News

A good measure of how far South Carolina has come in the role race plays in politics is that Barack Obama, while leading in the polls among blacks, is by no means the only choice of black voters, a political scientist who has studied the issue extensively says.

"African-Americans aren't voting as a bloc," said John Simpkins, a professor at the Charleston School of Law who is on sabbatical in New Zealand. "They're making up their minds on the candidates based on the issues and who they feel they align with on the issues."

For example, Greenville County Councilwoman Lottie Gibson, who is black, said she thinks Obama is "a bright young man" but she's endorsing Clinton.

"It ain't about race for me. It's about experience and where we are at this time in life," she said.

For this reason, I have to say, the primary is too close to call. If Hillary's legions of ladies come out to vote, as they did in New Hampshire, the polls (now showing Obama ahead) mean nothing.

Still, I'll go out on a limb and predict Obama wins by a nose.

Left: Hillary Clinton at Furman University's Younts Conference Center, yesterday. Photo from Greenville News

~*~


Candidates turn focus to economic issues
Democrats criticize Bush policies' effects on working Americans
Friday, January 25, 2008

By Dan Hoover
STAFF WRITER, Greenville News

The Clintons, Hillary and Bill, dropped the attack rhetoric Thursday as they campaigned furiously throughout South Carolina, while two new polls suggested she and John Edwards are tightening the race with Barack Obama.

After two weeks of increasingly bitter exchanges that culminated in Monday night's verbal bloodletting between Hillary Clinton and Obama in their nationally televised debate from Myrtle Beach, a truce of sorts settled in as the trio shifted the Democratic presidential primary dialogue back to domestic issues.

The Zogby and Clemson University Palmetto polls showed a lessening of Obama's lead and upward movement by Edwards. The Zogby poll indicated some erosion of Obama's black support.

At Furman University, Hillary Clinton told a packed meeting room of nearly 500 people that President Bush is partly to blame for the nation's economic troubles.

"The problem of our economy is not the American people," Clinton said. "Instead, the problem is in part the bankrupt ideals that have governed us over the last seven years. They have rewarded the very few at the expense of the many."

Campaigning along the coast, Obama hosted a roundtable discussion with military veterans in Beaufort that focused on his view of the need for a president with the judgment to keep America safe and the willingness to be held accountable for decisions.

"As a candidate, I know I am running to become commander-in-chief -- to safeguard our security, and to keep our sacred trust with those who serve," the Illinois senator said. "There is no responsibility I take more seriously."

Bill Clinton, who both gave to and got back from Obama, had become the hit man for his wife's campaign when it reached South Carolina where she trails Obama. On Thursday, he sounded a more conciliatory tone during a stop in Lexington.

A Clinton supporter asked that the campaign "stop taking the bait from Obama" and stick to the issues.

The former president called it "pretty good advice. It's probably good advice for me, too," he said.

He said Thursday that it's a lot harder to hear people criticize his wife than it ever was to be the target himself.

"When I was running, I didn't give a rip what anybody said about me. It's weird, you know, but if you love somebody and you think that they'd be good, it's harder."

Edwards, a Seneca native and former North Carolina senator, campaigned through his native Upstate, promoting his local roots and condemning the bipartisan economic stimulus package agreed to in Washington by Bush and congressional leaders of both parties.

It was 30 days too late and misdirected, he told a crowd of about 200 at The Beacon restaurant in Spartanburg.

Trailing in the polls, the wealthy trial lawyer has emphasized his working-class roots and us-vs.-them message with imagery of rapacious corporations, abetted by politicians, growing richer at the expense of everyday working folks.

"You can just guess, among the three of us (candidates), who's the person who first came out with a plan to strengthen the economy in the rural areas of America?" Edwards asked the crowd. "The only candidate who's from rural America."

Two polls released Thursday suggested a closer race and an improving picture for Edwards.

Clemson University's Palmetto Poll showed Obama at 27 percent, Clinton, 20 percent and Edwards, 17 percent. The poll, which had an undecided percentage of 36, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points, putting Clinton and Edwards into a statistical dead heat.

A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll showed that although Edwards remains in third place in South Carolina, he has gained significantly, while Obama and Clinton have experienced slippage.

The Jan. 21-23 tracking poll showed Edwards at 19 percent, up four points from the Jan. 20-22 survey; Clinton at 24 percent, down one; and Obama at 39 percent, down four points. The poll of 811 likely primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

"Obama still has a healthy lead among African-American voters, but lost almost nine points since (Wednesday), dropping from 65 percent to 56 percent support among that group," pollster John Zogby wrote on his Web site.

"Edwards, who registered no support from black voters the day before, picked up five points and Clinton added about two points to reach 18 percent of black support."

Zogby said nearly one in five black voters -- 19 percent -- remained undecided, up a point.

In Columbia, some of Clinton's black legislative supporters said they remain hopeful she will win.

"We're getting signs that people are fluid," state Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, said at a luncheon for U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and former New York City Mayor David Dinkins. Both were in the state to shore up Clinton's support among blacks.

Jackson predicted that Obama would get more black votes than Clinton, "but I think we're going to hold our own."

In addition to her Furman appearance, Hillary Clinton held a town hall meeting in Anderson, while Bill Clinton made stops in Lexington, Orangeburg, Barnwell and Winnsboro.

Obama campaigned in the Lowcountry.

After visiting Spartanburg, Edwards went to Laurens, Greenwood and Anderson, wrapping up with a rally in Seneca.

Edwards has scheduled a "Young People's Town Hall" meeting at 12:30 p.m. today at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. He also is scheduled to be at Tommy's Ham House in Greenville at 9 a.m.

Clinton will hold a town hall meeting at historically black Benedict College in Columbia at 9 a.m. and will speak at 1:30 p.m. at The Freedom Center in downtown Rock Hill.

Bill Clinton will speak at a 10:15 a.m. event in Spartanburg at the Chapman Cultural Center, then campaign for his wife in Laurens, Beaufort and Charleston.

Obama is scheduled to be at the Clemson outdoor amphitheater at 4:30 p.m.

Clinton's campaign launched a new 60-second radio ad in which the former president describes his wife as a problem-solver with the vision to deal with the nation's economic problems.

"The question is what to do about it," he says. "You've got a great decision to make, but I believe it's Hillary who can help solve these problems. I also know that African Americans have been hit the hardest these last seven years. Who can fix health care, who can fix our economy, who can create new jobs, who can reduce the price of gas at the pump?

"Hillary can. I've known her for 36 years. When it comes to seeing a problem and figuring out how to solve it, she's the best I've ever seen. She's always heard your voice and you'll be heard in the White House."

Edwards campaign commercials focus on his roots here in South Carolina:



~*~

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has thrown in the towel, for now. The big question for us cynics? Will his young, beautiful and British globe-trotting Elizabeth stick around, now that the excitement is dying down? Can someone who hangs with Shirley MacLaine, Tim Robbins and other movie stars be satisfied with.... Cleveland?

I think it would make a great reality show.

Probable Lesbian-baiting of Hillary Clinton looms on the horizon

Photo of Huma Abedin, from VOGUE.






In my email today comes a panoply of links, all accusing Hillary of being a lesbian. The links name names, and come with photos. Her name is Huma Abedin. The "evidence" is pretty flimsy, and is obviously in the eye of the beholder, namely, a bunch of right-wing homophobes and professional Hillary-haters.

For example, at the predictably-titled blog NoHillaryClinton.com, we get the National Enquirer version:

I have been receiving emails about Huma - one came for a Department of Justice computer (ISP) stating this: "I am close enough to both Hillary and Huma to know that it is an open secret on the campaign that those two are romantically involved. It is something you will never get them to verify though…"

[...]

According to my limited research the Clinton camp has tried to keep Huma’s existence real quiet. I at first suspected it to be because of her nationality and Hillary’s creepy relationships with India and Pakistan.

[...]

It is common knowledge that Hillary is bi-sexual. According to Bill’s long-time ex-girlfriend Gennifer Flowers, Hillary enjoyed performing oral sex on other women. On p.41 of Flowers’ autobiography "Gennifer Flowers: Passion and Betrayal", Gennifer asked Bill if there was any truth to the rumor that Hillary was having an affair with another woman. Bill laughed and said (referring to Hillary): "Honey - she’s probably eaten more p---- than I have."

And then we get the right wingnuts at FreeRepublic.com, who take the story further, accusing Abedin of being a Saudi intelligence agent. (Wait, I thought she was Pakistani? Ah, she lived in Saudi, as her mother still does.)

I guess all Muslims are suspect, according to this faction:

Setting aside all the titillation about the sapphic aspects of this story, the facts of p—y the matter just scream "intelligence mole".

How does the child of two university professors [one of them deceased], who is single, never married, and living on a clerical salary, in one of the most expensive cities in America, afford to "never... wear the same outfit twice"?

Much less purchase from the likes of Oscar de la Renta, Catherine Malandrino, Charles Nolan, Prada, and Marc Jacobs? Not to mention Yves Saint Laurent?

How does the child of two university professors [one of them deceased], who is single, never married, and living on a clerical salary, in one of the most expensive cities in America, afford to buy her own "apartment in the vicinity of 12th and U streets"?

What would such an apartment cost? $500,000? $750,000? $1,000,000?

Where is she getting that kind of money? Who is the co-signor on her loan?

And if she didn't dress nice, what would they be saying then? Jokes about Muslim women covering themselves up from head-to-toe and therefore having no fashion sense, undoubtedly. You can't win.

Apparently, it was Village Voice gossip columnist Michael Musto who got the party started:

As I recently said on MONICA CROWLEY's radio show, whisper campaigns are claiming that HILLARY CLINTON is GAYLE KING–ing her aide de camp, the glamorous HUMA ABEDIN, an Indian/Pakistani goddess from Kalamazoo, Michigan. In other words, Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. This way, no Republican can later say, "Who is this gorgeous babe who spends so much intimate time with Hillary that the Observer called her Hill's 'body person'? Was GENNIFER FLOWERS's book right about Hillary's sexual taste?" And does either of this couple have the balls to bottom?

Of course that whole scenario can't possibly be true, since Bill and Hill have been so lovey-dovey lately for the cameras, and besides, whenever he's been serviced by an intern—or by anyone—he's clearly been thinking of his wife. (They're that close.) But suddenly, Huma—a sort of Muslim SALMA HAYEK—has that spread in Vogue and the accompanying write-up notes that she "oversees every minute of Senator Clinton's day." Every single minute? Even Gayle King takes a break now and then! (PS: If I called for comment, Hillary's camp would surely say, "Just because two powerful women are closer than sardines doesn't make them dykes." And that's so true. Look at MATT and BEN. But now that Crowley has dubbed me the head of Huma Resources, I'm going to pursue this story with every cojone I've got.)

I debated whether to pile on by writing this. Of course, if the freight train is already heading full-speed-ahead into the station, my teeny, inconsequential blog doesn't make much of a difference. Obviously, other people are getting these same emails and links, and it's only a matter of time before the story breaks in the mainstream media.

Or are the Republicans waiting for her to win the nomination first?

I think it's important for feminists to be ready to ask the feminist questions, aside from the general "So what?" that is every decent person's gut reaction to such a smear.

1) Isn't it interesting how strong, powerful women are always lesbian-baited? I can't think of any who haven't been, except possibly Margaret Thatcher. (Is that how right wing you gotta be, to be above suspicion?)

2) Would the rumors have taken hold if we all didn't know intimate details about Bill Clinton? Is it widely believed that Bill had affairs because Hillary wouldn't put out? (Does everyone realize LOTS of men have affairs, who have completely heterosexual wives?)

3) Is this because of Hillary's pro-gay politics and her long-time friendships with women such as Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres? (Is Bill similarly suspect for HIS politics, and for hanging around with Elton John?)

Perhaps some of you can think of other dynamics to this story that I haven't.

----------------
Listening to: Billie Holiday - It's Easy to Remember
via FoxyTunes