Kidding, right?

John McCain has picked basically the only person in American politics who has less experience than Barack Obama. And before you guess “he’s picked my dog!”, I’ll give you a hint: Sarah Palin, governor of that great, relevant state, Alaska. That was less of a hint and more like I told you.

So McCain is the “maverick” once more who, to his credit, picked a moderate political reformer. However, Palin is a political reformer with an utterly repulsive (read: conservative) record on civil rights, which makes McCain’s move less of a “maverick” one and more like a “my ass has been handed to me by the conservative right” move. Are those people still in play? I thought they were all disillusioned and swearing off politics?!

While the prospect of a woman in the White House is enough to make a feminist giddy, Palin’s record is the opposite of progressive. As in, if she were any less progressive, she’d be moving backwards. Actually, she might be moving backwards as we speak: most conservatives will allow for abortion in circumstances of rape and incest but Palin stands stalwartly against the cause. What a champ.

As much as John McCain deserves to be pummeled for making such an overt and sloppy play for disenchanted Clinton voters and Palin needs to be raked across the coals for a poor record on civil rights and zero foreign policy experience, let’s pause for a moment and soak in some media hypocrisy and our favorite tendency of theirs, sexism:

1. Since Obama’s VP pick, commentators have gushed incessantly about how his “fabulous” choice rounds out his ticket well and that people can be reassured when they vote for him that they’d be picking a ticket laden with experience. On CNN, John Roberts has now downgraded the position of VP to a bobblehead figurine that mostly “attends funerals”. So if a VP does nothing and we’re not voting for the bottom of the ticket as well as the top, then what purpose does Biden serve other than to look avuncular?

2. John Roberts on CNN also asked whether the disability of Palin’s youngest child (he has Downs Syndrome) would distract her from her job, saying: “Children with Down syndrome require an awful lot of attention and the role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time. It raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?” Um. Have the children of male candidates ever been raised as “potential distractions”?

3. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC asked if Joe Biden could really debate with Palin or if he’d be accused of picking on a girl. His style “can be tough against a woman. Doesn’t it give her a gender advantage?…You can’t be too tough on a woman in a debate, or can you?” Thrilling and insightful, Ms Mitchell. Did you include how your gender was an advantage against men in your 2005 book “Talking Back” regarding your experiences being the first woman to cover five presidents, Congress and foreign policy? No? You kept it firmly on how you played it tough and gritty?

Last time I checked, Hillary Clinton just finished spinning on her head and spitting nickels in order to pacify the women that these left-wing media outlets insulted with their careless sexism and primary-long misogyny. Please do not tell me that they are going to replay their greatest hits.

I don’t think I’m going to be speaking to anyone by the end of this election.

Conventional Coverage Part deux

Barack Obama gives a semi-brilliant political tour de force on the night of MLK Jr’s “I had a Dream Speech” and instead of allowing the historic significance to sink in subtly for viewers, CNN goes on the hunt for sobbing black people with questions such as: “well, what does this mean for you?” “how do you feel as an American tonight?”

Translation: You’re black, he’s black, this is historical, give us a sound byte.

Clingin’ to their guns- Conventional Coverage Pt I

August 26 and 27 marked the first two days of the Democratic National Convention. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton gave their much-anticipated speeches on Monday and Tuesday respectively. After the former, CNN did their best to troll the audience for any bitter, uneducated white (not to mention racist) women still holding out for the Day of Reckoning, also known as Insurrection, also known as Armageddon.

Media itself remains thoroughly suspicious of the powerhouse couples’ motives: some pundits have offered tepid approval for her speech but have generally agreed that, for the sake of prolonging the “tension” angle and hiking their ratings, she didn’t support the Democratic nominee enough. I suppose this can be chalked up to the fact that she didn’t insert his name more than 12 times in her speech (it only rhymes with so much, guys); CNN has an inane “body language” report, which goes to show that the only thing that Senator Clinton could do to make pundits happy these days is to die. I wish more people would take the approach of brilliant half-man half-mutant and consummate Clinton insider, James Carville: in CNN’s immediate post-speech analysis with Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, he gave commentators the media equivalent of a bitch slap by telling them to shut the hell up (or something resembling that) and to appreciate a good speech for what it is. Marie Cocco of the Washington Post sums it all up neatly in this article by voicing what Clinton supporters have known for a while: Obama could lose, hail might fall, lightning might strike, the earth might crack open, cats and dogs living together, etc. etc., and all would be blamed on the machinations of the Clintons.

If/when Obama does win, I have decided that his victory can be placed squarely in the laps of his two adorable kids. The media and I are for once in complete agreement about this one. But wait, this is not pimping? Totally acceptable so long as mom’s present on stage with you.

PBS thought it fit to have a roundtable on the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage on women in politics–without the women. Why? ‘Cause chicks are stupid of course.

Partial nudity

Rick Sanchez is possibly the most vacuous political commentator that CNN has. His “coverage” of the Biden speech and general Obama campaign strategy included savvy leading question gems such as:

[Regarding remarks Biden made about McCain] “is this the attack dog people are talking about? Do you think the gloves are off for Biden?”

What I wish was said: No, Rick, this is not the attack dog people are talking about. And he’s still wearing gloves.”

[Regarding Obama's use of social networking sites in his campaign] “is what Obama doing truly revolutionary? Will future campaigns look to use technology in the remarkable ways the Obama campaign has?”

[Some guy from Rolling Stone Magazine] “uh, yeah.”

What I wish was said: “No. People are not going to use the revolutionary grassroots tactics that Obama did. In fact, they’ll go in the complete opposite direction and make cold calls.”

Late night CNN: where masochists go for their news.

The Democratic National Convention kicks off tonight. I suppose I’ll do what I do every time the DNC is on: watch episodes of West Wing and cry into my beer.

feti fingerfoods

Good to see that incarnations of Satan such as Jill Stanek get credibility in news outlets such as AP and NY Times. I’m glad that a person who claims that the Chinese eat human fetuses as delicacies and women who have abortions deserve to be abused can take her rightful place in mainstream media where she clearly belongs–you know, as opposed to the far off fringes with all the other lunatics. Why oh why do political news outlets insist on giving people like Ms. Stanek a voice at the table simply because they’re moderately attractive vis a vis the usual talking heads?

Scandal to go

The final Olympic tally can be found here with the top 3 medal earners being the US with 110, China with 100 and Russia with 72. China came in first with total number of golds though with 51; US, 36; Russia, 23. The New York Times sounded like assholes saying “China’s rise meant less gold for the rest of the world” as if US’ domination of the top spot in previous years didn’t mean the same exact thing.

Chinese officials continue to give disingenuous excuses for age discrepancies in their women’s gymnasts, blaming the entire thing on faulty paperwork submitted multiple times before someone wised up and realized that if they didn’t change the ages, athletes like He Kexin wouldn’t be competing in 2008. According to a decent article by Time Magazine, age-fixing isn’t unusual for athletes in any sport in any country but seems especially prevalent in China where athletes change their ages to dominant younger age groups in the national games AKA the All China Games. The IOC has finally decided to do their job properly by asking the Chinese Gymnastic Association to submit more documents verifying the age of five out of six of the squads athletes but what are the chances anything with come up contradicting the CGA’s claims?

Questions in regard to athletes’ ages will certainly last far beyond these Games and some are hoping age limitations will be dropped completely, thereby justifying China’s program of Brothers Grimm-like baby-stealing and allowing everyone to lie with guilt-free consciences: if 12 year olds can win medals, why bother with an over-the-hill 16 year old who might know her own mind? Huzzah!

I got 2 queens, an ace, and a muslim: China playing the “Islamic Card”

According to news reports, Xinjiang, the geographically strategic, northwestern corner of China is shaping up to be the next hotbed of separatism for the CCP– or at least an infinitely better funded one than Tibet given its proximity to Afghanistan. The official explanation for violence originating in or from the region is usually terrorism of the Islamic variety, but several human rights groups disagree, claiming that the government is using terrorism as a pretext to crackdown on any unrest in the region. Most everyone agrees that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement exists, but can’t agree if it consists of 2 men and their dog or 3 men and a baby.

Writing for the East-West Center in 2004, James Millward asserted that claims of a terrorist threat are greatly exaggerated; Abanti Bhattacharya for the IDSA called China out in 2003 for playing the “Islamic Card” and being insecure. Both scholars agree that any “separatist movement” going on is rooted in identity politics rather than the extreme religious movements of Central Asia.

The CCP would beg to differ– or rather, doesn’t feel up to differentiating, as a separatist movement is a separatist movement is a separatist movement to them. The Chinese government doesn’t think water cannons are gonna stop this one so its switchin’ to guns (if you got the vague-ish Top Gun reference in there, points to you) and the new leadership is looking to prove its mettle with a hard crackdown.

I suppose it’s too late to be philosophical about this but: does repression beget terror or terror, repression? At some point when some official feels up to consulting with hindsight– you know, when/if this has turned into one big jihad party, the US will realize its tacit approval of China’s activities on the western border will have done more damage to its attempt to quell terrorism in the region than anything else. Should anyone be surprised that a religious identity is growing in an economically poor, aggrieved, oppressed community?

I happen to support China’s efforts to secure its borders, but I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that if they had played their cards right and had been a wee bit more supportive of benign religious activity, China might not be facing this potentially explosive situation.

B-I-D-E-N BINGO!

Obama notified his supporters at 3 AM this morning of his VP pick in Senator Joe Biden via the self-consciously hip use of text message, conveying once again that he is “with it” in terms of the most appalling tech habits of his most enthusiastic demographic. One can only hope John McCain follows suit with a rousing game of BINGO for his choice: “J-O-E L-I-E-B-E …oh what’s the point, my choices suck either way.”

CNN in the run up to the announcement devoted an orgiastic 4+ hours (that I bothered with) of coverage on the possibility that Biden would be Obama’s choice, giving a whole new meaning to the word “exhaustive.” I was semi-interested in what they had to say about it around 7, but turned it on mute and watched the ticker when I realized that there is only 2 real ways you can say “Biden gives Obama old-school cred” …actually, nope, there’s only 1. But I suppose there are all sorts of less eloquent ways of saying “Bridge Building” that Time Magazine uses to great effect, which include “reaching out to racist people who refuse to admit their racism.”

Speaking of being unintentionally racist, Liberals are waiting, bated breath and fingers crossed that Biden won’t say anything devastatingly stupid or if he does, at least doesn’t say it about Obama again. God, I hope he calls President Bush a honky. And speaking of (liberals, not honkys..or maybe both), Arianna Huffington, who fancies herself and her eponymous website an agent of major change in the political game, is having a self-congratulatory panel on that very topic if anyone is interested.

Jacob Weisberg of Slate opines that the only way Obama could lose is through racism which I think takes it a tad too far, but this oldie but goodie from political guru/commentary Charlie Cook, who came down from his mountain earlier this month to write this huge steaming shit at its base and climb back on up, would agree that the presidential campaign is less about McCain vs. Obama and more about Obama’s relationship with older white voters. A scintillating take on the presidential race? Fresh? A new perspective? Please, let’s not be silly.

Underage 4U2

The US presidential campaign has given rise to a tedious amount of journalism that contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation, and here is a fine example from the Wash. Post about the Democrats vs. Republicans in Beaver County (I kid you not) and the type of democratic demographic it represents (hint: not the type that Obama is doing particularly well with). This odious story about Obama voting to kill the underage (babies, feti, whatever) looks like it’s going to gain traction with the Jesus-set and I’m sure we’re all looking forward to the abortion debate once again as pro-lifers galvanize themselves–Nebraska does like to feel relevant, you know, and it’ll be reassuring to see Obama continue to roll back all his earlier pro-choice decisions. Meanwhile, Obama and McCain are throwing ‘bows about wives and houses: the attack ad on McCain asserts he’s old and enfeebled because he doesn’t know how many houses he owns, and Obama is a pointy-headed felon lover who lives in a “frickin mansion”. Glad we’re keeping it above the fray, boys. I personally want to know why McCain hasn’t been called out for his pansy-ass ways: his wife (that “cunt” by his measure, if you recall) owns all the property and in this economy, that’s the equivalent to wearing the pants. Wait…is McCain a woman?

Like I mentioned before, Reuters/Zogby has McCain up by 5 and the press is in a tizzy, mainly because they’ve been the only ones not paying attention to this election. This article is, quite frankly, hilarious. I particularly like its descriptions of various liberal reactions upon hearing Obama is down/tied:

“Still others just shake their heads at the racism of anyone who could possibly have a problem with a very left-wing politician with almost no experience, who often sounds like his campaign slogan is: ‘People of Earth! Stop Your Bickering. I Am From Harvard, And I’m Here To Help.’”

I mean, it’s kind of true. Obama is the nubile, political equivalent of He Kexin: very bendy and very underage. Publications are waking up to the fact that the presidential campaign isn’t a done deal and have jumped into the fray. I particularly recommend The Economist piece for no other reason than the snotty line: “When it comes to the issues, it is hardly surprising that The Economist is less impressed.” I’m thinking of making it my tagline…in life.

The American Presidential Race: The Hard Road Ahead by The Economist

Yes We Can? Make That: ‘Oops, we may not’ by the UK Times Online (using that annoyingly passe title)

ESPN: Chink sighting on the US Dream Team

Good lord, ESPN: seriously ? ESPN came to its senses within about 30 minutes of splashing this onto its homepage this afternoon but the fact that it took them that long to realize it might not be the most sensitive of titles while playing for gold in China is alarming. Was someone in the back room trying to be witty or do you think this was all a mistake?