So by now we all know the basics about Sarah Palin, first-term governor of Alaska and John McCain's utterly transparent pick for running mate: She's a self-described "hockey mom," an avid proponent of drilling in Alaska and an equally avid opponent of abortion and gay-marriage rights. (She's also so unknown as a politician that Fox News has repeatedly been referring to her as "Susan" Palin—though admittedly, getting facts right has never been the forte of that particular outlet, has it?)
If ever there were a film that ought to be required viewing for the readers of Bitch, it would be Lisa F. Jackson's The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, which premiered on HBO last night. And not for the bleeding-heart liberal reasons that instantly spring to mind.
Things that are pissing me off today: Lynndie England is blaming the media for printing the photos taken at Abu Ghraib of Iraqi prisoners being tortured. According to an AP piece, she acknowledges that after the photos of the atrocities were exposed, the Iraqi insurgency picked up. Here's her quote:
"Yeah, I took the photos but I didn't make it worldwide.
A few commenters have wondered in the past few weeks why there's been such a paltry amount of coverage of the primaries and their attendent issues on this site. I can't speak for my colleagues — as we always write, in tiny print, in the magazine's masthead, we have varying opinions and no monolithic position on most of the issues we cover — but I've become, as I'm sure many of you have, really exhuasted by the circularity of so much of the dialogue surrounding the question of who deserves the nomination more, Hillary or Barack.
The best take I've seen on the feminist infighting on whom to support in the primaries (via Feministe, whose Jill also has some great stuff to say). (And cheers to Alternet for for inaugurating a Reproductive Justice and Gender section, but shouldn't there be something else for feminist coverage? 'Cause, y'know, the last time I checked, gender issues encompassed a whole lot more than baby-makin' parts.)
I came to this decision the night before last, after watching Obama's South Carolina victory speech on YouTube. (Thankfully it was before I read anything about Edwards dropping out—psychologically, I'm glad I made a choice among three and not between two, even though in practical terms the distinction is meaningless.)
...and I still haven't made up my mind. The other day I was reduced to telling someone that I had thought about voting for Edwards, but now I was leaning toward Obama. Or Clinton. Or Obama. Or Clinton. Or maybe Edwards.
I've never been undecided this close to election day before.
Then again, I've never been making a choice that felt this important before, either—nor, with the exception of my very first presidential election, in 1992 (before the Bill Clinton of the campaign became the Bill Clinton of "don't ask, don't tell" and "end[ing] welfare as we know it"), have I cast a vote without a) a sigh of resignation that I'd picked the lesser of the evils or b) a sigh of resignation that I was doomed to a protest vote yet again. (And since Kucinich just dropped out, I don't even have the protest vote option this time around.)
No, this time I've got to make an actual difficult and potentially meaningful decision. And each candidate actually has something really exciting to recommend hir: fiery populist rhetoric; seriously inspiring charisma; a raft of plans for healthcare, the environment, the war; or some combination of the above. I'm going to be (dare I say it) pretty happy to vote for whichever one ends up in the general election (though maybe that's just my seven-years-of-Bush hangover talking).
And yet, each one also disappoints in some pretty serious ways.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
