Recently in Politics Category

My name is Shark-Fu and I usually practice the fine art of bitchitude over at AngryBlackBitch.com.

But let me tell y'all that a bitch is thrilled to be in the land of Feministing.

Shall we?

The Vice Presidential debate is going to be in my hometown of St. Louis Missouri and this bitch has been fantasizing about it for days. Not just because of my fan-based joy of being able to watch the fantabulous Gwen Ifill moderate, but because of the opportunity I'm damn sure we're going to let pass us by as these two people sweep in and sweep out of St. Louis Missouri.

Oh, how a bitch would love to have a day with them.

Blink.

I would!

Mmmhmmm, a bitch would take Senator Biden and Governor Palin on a tour.

I'd take them to my neighborhood, where public schools leave poor children behind and middle class families struggle to send their children go to private schools. I'd walk them through the grade school up the street and around the corner to meet young people and talk to them about the fucked up tests and the flawed standards...the lack of funding for what they need and the abundance of funding for what they don't need any more of.

We'd drive to the local shelter for pregnant teens where I teach women's health and voter education classes and we'd stay for lunch. They'd meet the young woman who found out how to prevent pregnancy when she became pregnant and the pregnant fifteen year old who faces motherhood alone after being denied choice and options by law.

Of course we'd have to drop by a union hall and have coffee with workers who have seen factories close and industry flee...who have seen my state's greatest export become our people.

We'd have a meeting with local law enforcement to go over the daunting crime figures...the rise in violent crime and gun violence that too many county residents expect to see in the city and too many city residents don't expect to change anytime soon.

And then I'd sit them both down and tell them in very specific terms exactly what change means to a bitch.

Lawd knows that we'll be lucky if either one of them pause for a fundraiser...some tastefully catered affair in a "good" neighborhood attended by all the right people and blah followed by blah followed by another blah.

Sigh.

But a bitch can dream...

...and hold out hope that Ms. Ifill will toss in a few questions on behalf of the masses whilst getting her moderating on.

Gloria Steinem penned an op-ed for the LA Times on Sarah Palin and why she's the "wrong woman" with the "wrong message."

Amazing. (Told you it was video Friday!)

Thanks to Matt for the tip.

File under: too good not to post.

Via Andrew.

On the very day Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, I linked to Jill's post on the already-emerging sexist meme questioning her fitness to hold office while holding a baby at the same time. And since the news of her daughter's pregnancy, the media racket over Palin's fitness to be both VP and mother has grown even louder.

To be clear, I think the question of work/family balance is sometimes asked with regard to male politicians. (The criticism of John Edwards' decision to continue his primary campaign after his wife's cancer diagnosis springs to mind.) But far and away, the question is more likely to come up when the candidate is a woman. Especially a woman with young kids. So yeah, I think it's typically pretty sexist.

But as long as all sorts of bloggers and news outlets are asking... YES, of course Sarah Palin is capable of having a very important job and still being a good mother. Absolutely. As with all major life choices women make, it's condescending to assume that she somehow hasn't thought this through, or that she hasn't already been doing a demanding job while simultaneously being an attentive mother. Writes Monika Bauerlein at Mother Jones (who, along with another mother of a young child, is editor-in-chief of the magazine):

Too many women have been patronized out of jobs they wanted with pseudo-considerate treacle like "I thought your priority right now was your family." It's happened to friends of mine; it's happened to me; if you have ovaries, chances are pretty good it has happened or will happen to you. That's the reality of living in post-women's lib America, and that's why one part of me is heartened by the Palin pick. People may find lots of reasons why she shouldn't be in the White House--but at least, having little kids didn't put her out of the running in the first place. And for that, I have to confess, I'm grateful to John McCain.

I'll grant her that. But also it's important to note Palin's privilege here. She has a partner who is able to be a full-time caregiver for her kids. She has excellent benefits and access to health care. She has a flexible office situation (one article discussed how she had a crib next to her desk). This is way more than a lot of working women have. Awhile ago, my colleague Dana Goldstein went to a conservative women's lunch, where Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers was speaking. Like Palin, McMorris Rodgers was a new mother of a baby with Down syndrome, and had a full-time caregiving partner. Dana wrote,

It's mind-boggling, of course, how McMorris Rodgers can advocate for women's economic mobility even as she opposes programs, like S-CHIP, that help mothers pay for their kids' medical needs. On June 27, she did not vote when the Committee on Education and Labor, on which she sits, passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would overturn a May Supreme Court decision that made it almost impossible to file complaints of gender or race-based pay discrimination. No Republican Committee member supported the bill.

And this is the exact question that's not being asked about Palin. The media are clamoring to ask whether she can juggle her children and her career. But they aren't saying a peep about whether she wants to enact policies that will make it easier for women -- especially women who do not enjoy the privilege that Palin and McMorris Rodgers do -- to perform this balancing act.

Where does Palin stand on S-CHIP? On fair pay? On paid family leave? I have no idea. But her running mate, John McCain, was rated by the Children's Defense Counsil as the worst senator for children. He supports businesses who discriminate on the basis of gender. He attempted to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act. And he supported Bush's veto of S-CHIP. (Gloria Feldt and Carol Joffe have more.)

The real story here is not how Sarah Palin chooses to balance her own life. It's about whether she (and McCain) are committed to making these choices easier for all women. And clearly, the answer is no.

If you didn't listen to WBAI's Hip-Hop Takoever-Election Style this weekend, you definitely missed out. But lucky for you, we have a segment that you can listen to right here: "Politics for Goddesses Rising: Our Relevance in Election '08."

Hosted by Feministing friend jaz and Nida Khan, the show featured Rosa Clemente, VP Presidential Running Mate of Green Party and Presidential Nominee Cynthia McKinney and Kevin Powell, who is running for a Congressional seat in Brooklyn. The show takes on how women's issues are being addressed in this election; the importance of local politics and politicians, the media's lack pundits who are women of color and more...

WBAI 99.5 FM's Hip-Hop Takeover was 17 hours of non-stop hip-hop programming - but this is definitely the hour to listen to!

Because fighting domestic violence makes one so unelectable. Via Barefoot and Progressive:

Exxon Eddie Whitfield's surrogate has just posted a clip of his opponent in KY's 1st congressional district race, Heather Ryan, performing a short piece from the Vagina Monologues earlier this year, which raised money for the Merriman House in Paducah for battered women. In it, he asks "Is this what we want to represent the first district of Kentucky?"

Uhhhh.... YES.

Violence, shmiolence - this woman is in a show about vaginas, people!! Sigh, how moronic. (Albeit not surprising.)

So McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She's young -- 44 -- and a self-described "hockey mom." Because Palin is relatively unknown on the national level (she's been governor since 2006, and before that was mayor of a town of 8,000 people), a lot of people are already identifying this as a ploy to snag the votes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. I don't know whether that's true (my guess is yes), but it's my sense that Hillary backers who don't like Obama are not going to like a McCain/Palin ticket much better.

Let me say right off the bat that, overall, I think it's great that Republicans have chosen to elevate a woman to this level -- no matter what their motivations. I want to see more women of all parties involved in politics. But, as we stated over and over in the primaries, a politician's gender isn't everything. It's merely one factor to be considered. And quite frankly, Palin's political views suck.

First up, she's super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down's syndrome.) She's against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she "has gay friends." Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She's also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Plus, she's embroiled in a scandal:

But Palin's seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.

As Vanessa blogged last month, Bill Kristol was claiming McCain would pick Palin -- and that would prove that Republicans are "much more open to strong women." Frankly, that's bullshit. Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

More to come later... Any Alaskans out there who know a bit more about her? What do the rest of you think?

UPDATE: My colleague Adam over at TAP makes some great points:

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it's equally sexist. Palin is essentially a hard right ideologue, and therefore nothing like Hillary as far as substance is concerned. It's not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004. The conservative media reaction has already engaged in paternalistic language, with FOX News reporting on television that "McCain broke the glass ceiling," implying in fact, that the pick had nothing to do with Palin or her qualifications, but merely her gender. It's fitting that the party positing affirmative action as a program that picks people exclusively based on race or gender rather than qualification should do something similar given an opportunity for political advancement. While Obama is promising change through policy, not simply through the circumstances of his birth, the McCain campaign thinks his appeal is simply visual and demographic, and therefore something they can exploit.

UPDATE II: Bilerico has more on her record on LGBT issues.

Go read Angry Black Bitch's thoughts on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. A taste:

Members of my family...men and oh yes, women...earned the protected vote in 1965. And I wish my Grandmère was alive today to cast her vote for whoever she damn well would want to. My vote isn't about candidates...I've been in this game too long to fall in love with politicians or be romanced by campaigns.

No, my vote is all about me and mine.

Now go read the rest.

Ann gave you a serious run-down on Biden already, but I just wanted to highlight this piece from Jonathan Cohn at TNR on the silence in the mainstream media and beyond about Biden's role in drafting and passing the Violence Against Woman Act.

Today is the 88th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

In honor of the anniversary, I thought folks could share their first-time-voting story... The first time I voted (and I was so excited to) was in the 1996 presidential election. I had turned 18 years old a mere four days before election day, and I was living in New Orleans at the time - which meant that I had to vote by absentee ballot. Not quite the lever-pulling fun I was looking for, but I remember being so psyched that it didn't much matter to me. I was also the high and mighty gal who was appalled by my classmates who weren't voting, and wasn't afraid to let them know. Yeah, I wasn't very popular at Tulane. (Thank goodness for transferring!)

What's your story?

Love. Love. Love.

Via Andrew.

This incredible Congressional leader is gone, but her legacy will live on in the fierce stand she took against the war and repressive Bush-era policies, her unflinching support of reproductive justice, and her insistence on speaking out often.

Tubbs Jones chaired the House Ethics Committee. In 2002, she voted against the use of military force in Iraq. And again, when most of our nation's leaders were hoodwinked by faulty testimony about WMDs and fear mongering, she was one of only 11 House members to oppose a resolution supporting U.S. troops in Iraq in March of 2003.

Tubbs Jones also opposed President Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of Social Security and spoke out against election fraud in 2004.

And by all personal accounts, she was a joy to be around. She will be missed, but modeled after for years to come.

Check out Jess' great piece about Michelle Obama and sexist media in the Guardian. It's nice to know that Jess is the one reppin' American feminism across the pond. An excerpt:

When Clinton was still campaigning I received daily emails from various women's organisations, furious about the way the media was treating their candidate. These days, however, my inbox is fairly empty. And the press releases and action alerts I do get about Michelle Obama seem to lack the outrage and fervour of past Clinton-focused statements.

That's not to say women's organisations aren't up to the task. The National Organisation for Women, for instance, has shifted the focus of their Media Hall of Shame to attacks on Obama. But feminists should be up in arms. Because as shameful as the treatment they're getting is, our silence is even more so.

Terrible news:

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, is reported to have suffered an aneurysm and is not expected to recover, according to CBS affiliate WOIO in Cleveland.

WOIO also reported that the congresswoman is on life support at this time.

Tubbs Jones was the first black woman to represent Ohio, and one of only 23 women of color in Congress. Our thoughts are with her family.

UPDATE: Tubbs Jones has died.

UPDATE II: Apparently there are conflicting reports.

The speculation about who Obama will choose as his running mate is hitting a fever pitch this week. The conventional political wisdom says there's only one woman on Obama's short list -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

During the primary, we wrote a lot about how most of us at Feministing believe a candidate's gender is an important factor, but far from the only factor. I think that logic holds true when we're talking about VP candidates, too. The dudes reportedly on Obama's short-list, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Joe Biden, and especially Gov. Tim Kaine, just leave me kind of cold. And while we don't make endorsements, I have to say that I really like Sebelius. She's managed to pass a lot of progressive policies (and veto/contain a lot of really terrible conservative polities) in a Republican-dominated state. While I don't agree with her on stances on gay rights or guns, she has an awesome record on choice and the environment.

Over at TAPPED, Dana writes:

Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice -- very Obama. But by choosing a female running mate, Obama would, unfortunately, thrust the Hillary die-hards and their ever-more marginal discontentment back into the spotlight. That said, anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn't deserve the designation "feminist." So I'd relish watching the reactions to a Sebelius nod, not only because such a choice would double down on Obama's most effective message -- "change" -- but because it would reveal exactly which Clinton boosters are ready to widen the lens and enthusiastically support women's leadership as such.

That's harsher than I would have put it. But I think Dana is fundamentally right in that it would be fascinating to see the reaction to a Sebelius pick. I think most former Hillary backers would not disappoint. Maybe that's because, in my personal experience, every woman I know who was a die-hard Hillary supporter would be really happy to see any liberal, pro-choice woman on the ticket with Obama. As Addie Stan wrote last month,

But the notion that voters mad at Obama because, being a young man, he swept past a 60-year-old woman who has paid some serious dues -- that those voters then would be miffed by the nomination of a 50+-year-old-woman who has paid some serious dues simply makes no sense. It has no internal logic, which obviously would not disqualify it in the eyes of those who think that older women -- and let's face it, that's what is meant by "disaffected Hillary voters" -- lack the capacity for logical decision-making.

Amen. So... who do y'all want to see as Obama's VP pick? And who do you think it will actually be?

Miriam mentioned the other day that the Democrats had improved the language about reproductive rights in the party platform. Yesterday, however, came the news that they've stripped out the platform's only references to gay and lesbian Americans. Here's the edited version:

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

Cynical interpretation: They're trying to scale back explicit support for LGBT rights.

Hopeful interpretation: They're defining "families" broadly and inclusively -- not limited to straight or to straight and queer couples.

Thoughts?

Via Kay Steiger at Pushback:

It looks like the Democratic Party dropped the "safe, legal and rare" part of its platform on choice. The new platform (PDF), which was just released, puts less of an emphasis on the controversial abortion reduction framework. The section on choice reads as follows:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."

I'm personally really excited to see them mention the ability to pay, since the Hyde Amendment has been such a huge barrier for low-income women and women of color. This is more progressive than I might have expected.

Dana Goldstein at TAPPED shares her thoughts about the changes to the platform this year and how it represents the needs of women, and could even be called feminist document.

Maggie at The Feminist Underground alerts us to the fact that, of the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates this election cycle, only one will be moderated by a woman. Gwen Ifill will be posing the questions during the VP debate.

And here's where I hand it over to Maggie to hit you with the sad stats:

Ifill had the same job back in the 2004 debates. Turns out she's the only female involved in moderating since 1992.

What's even worse is that this isn't a big step forward for the debates, instead it's a big step back. The first televised debates were in 1960, and, not surprisingly, had no female moderators or panelists. But when the next debates came in 1976, there was a significant amount of female involvement. All four debates had a female panelist or moderator. All four women from that year are excellent role models, the kind of women who entered journalism at a time when it was a heavily male-dominated industry but went on to become highly successful reporters.

From 1976 to 1988, every debate had a female moderator or panelist. In 1992, three out of four had one or more women as a panelist or moderator. Barbara Walters appeared three separate times in those years.

She goes on to explain some of the changes that have taken place at the commission that controls the debate -- and how that's contributed to the notable lack of women moderators. Read the rest.

I'd argue there are just as many accomplished, serious women in broadcast news today as there were in the '70s and '80s. Sure, there's still an element of what Samantha Bee calls the "N.I.L.F." factor in network news. But there are also a lot of female political correspondents and analysts who are just as qualified to query the presidential candidates as the white-haired old men who were chosen for the job. For one, I nominate Candy Crowley. And, for the love of god, please give Gwen Ifill one of the presidential debates next time around. Don't relegate her to the VP slot.

Maureen Dowd demonstrates how to do it wrong: Use gendered insults to call Edwards a narcissist, and then call the woman he had the affair with a "neophyte" who made "vain little videos for his Web site."

Lauren and Octogalore at Feministe demonstrate how to do it right: Explore with honesty and depth the implications of his denying the "Love Child," and examine this scandal in the context of politicians acting in accordance with their stated values.

Former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted to having an extramarital affair. Thoughts?

Last weekend John McCain made an appearance at Sturgis. This annual biker rally features a beauty pageant, called Miss Buffalo Chip, in which contestants model biker gear, lingerie, and bikinis. Sounds pretty awesome to John McCain:

In introducing his wife, McCain noted the ongoing beauty pageant at the event and said that he had "encouraged Cindy to compete. I told her, with a little luck, she could be the only person ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

As Jesse at Pandagon puts it:

All I'm saying is that if Barack Obama had gone to an event with 20,000 people wasting gas to talk about energy and said that his wife should have simulated sucking a banana dick between another woman's legs, this race would be fucking over.

I have to say, the best thing about this stupid little news item is that it led me to discover WomenForJohnMcCain.com -- a truly amazing parody site that contains hours of entertainment and joy. Check it out.

Hanaa Rifaey doesn't sleep much. I'll let her explain why. But the next time you find yourself pissed at another policy done wrong, know that Hanaa is on it. And you can be, too. Even if it's a small step, it'll add up.

Here's Hanaa...

Yesterday the House held a hearing on sexual assault in the military, a topic we've written on repeatedly. Not just the insanely and disturbingly high rates of sexual assault, but the effect is has on female vets.

Rep. Louise Slaughter reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, which would establish an Office of Victims Advocate within the Department of Defense and hopefully improve efforts to respond to cases of sexual violence and harassment in the military.

At the hearing, sexual assault survivor Ingrid Torres testified. What an incredibly brave woman:

"The road after sexual assault is a long and challenging one. As is typical of violent crime, I suffer from PTSD, violent nightmares, and depression. I still wake in the night, he still comes after me in my dreams... Because of the impending courts martial, I was advised not to talk openly about the case, which caused rumors and misconceptions to run rampant. There was no escaping it and no making it better. The hostility grew with my silence...Ultimately, our society still publicly and privately tries the victims in sexual assault cases. Rape is the only crime where the victim has to prove their innocence."

RH Reality Check has more.

In other congressional news, yesterday the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation. Because he likes making $1 to your 76 cents, dammit.

Newly-appointed UN human rights chief Navanethem Pillay has long been an advocate for women. A co-founder of women's rights organization Equality Now, Pillay also served as President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and was the first woman of color on the High Court of South Africa.

Pillay replaces Louise Arbour in the position.

Read more about Pillay here and here.

Thanks to Martha for the heads up.

In Congress right now there is a hearing to discuss the issue of impeaching President Bush. While there is a lot of hill related jargon that is over my head, it's pretty fascinating. You can listen at CSPAN radio here.

Just to clarify, this hearing is just a discussion about impeachment, and not an official hearing that could result in actual impeachment. Complicated system.

I have to say, I'm kind of in shock that such a gross racist term would come out of John Kerry's mouth - and with such nonchalance! Renee at Womanist Musings has more.

Senator Clinton has a guest post up at RH Reality Check on Bush's last-ditch efforts to make a rule that defines "abortion" so broadly that it would apply to birth control and emergency contraception.

Oh South Dakota. You never cease to amaze.

Starting Friday, doctors in South Dakota must tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life and may cause them psychological harm, the state attorney general said.

...The 2005 law requires doctors to tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause them psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

So basically, they have to provide patients with false information. Nice. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is fighting back. "We remain optimistic that, in time, the court will find that the law is unconstitutional," says PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz.

To find out how to get involved and counter the anti-choice agenda in South Dakota, check out PPMNS's action page.

Related: Ann blogged about the politics of "informed consent" when the court decision came down last month.

So does he not know that he voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control for women? Or does he just not want to talk about it?

Think Progress has more.

Girl w/ Pen has a great post up about how influential Michelle Obama Watch, the blog by Gina McCauley, has already been--90,000 page views in the last 20 days, coverage in The Baltimore Sun etc. I certainly have been trying to talk it up on all my panels and speaking gigs in the last couple of months. Thanks Gina and crew!

I say that's hilarious considering who this is coming from. I'm a week late on this, but it's a necessary mention. Via Think Progress:

Kristol: I think Hillary Clinton was gracious, she's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated. I'm appalled by it, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party, you know...we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women. That's why McCain is going to put Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, on the ticket.

This is coming from a guy who said that "white women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that" and was named in the Media Hall of Shame by the National Organization for Women.

Many of you have probably heard about Obama's interview with a Christian magazine last week where he said he said that "mental distress" is not a sufficient exception to bans against late-term abortions. He later clarified his statement:

"My only point is this-historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family, I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

In the past, there has been some fear on the part of people who--not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle--that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case. I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. . .

It can be defined through physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

His clarification has still, nonetheless, brought up questions of whether Obama would support narrowing abortion rights. We thought we'd open this up for discussion. People's thoughts?

Check out more coverage on this.

Inspired by a ten page article about Rush in NYTimes Magazine, I figured this was FU worthy. Rush has been spewing crap since I was a wee one and his frequently unfounded and baseless arguments are clearly constructed to be controversial, but actually affects public opinion. This is scary.

(I know I need to get a real camera.)

Thanks to George for the link.

On Dennis Miller's radio show Wednesday, McCain's former top strategist Mike Murphy talks about current chief strategist Charlie Black's recent slip that another terrorist attack would be "a big advantage" for their campaign. And what better way to lighten the conversation by joking about tits:

Transcript:

MILLER: Charlie Black, the aide decamp for McCain who gacks it here, does he have to go, do you think?

MURPHY: Well, he’s an old friend of mine, so I’ll defend him. I don’t know what happened. I think there must have been tremendous reporter cleavage involved or something.

MILLER: hahahahahahaha

MURPHY: Charlie got off his focus, he’s a good guy, he’s apologized for it... (Emphasis mine)

Via Think Progress.

h/t to Jake.

Quench Zine is liveblogging the first-ever congressional hearing on trans issues, "An Examination of Discrimination Against Trangender Americans in the Workplace."

RH Reality Check has a special feature this week - an election coverage package on choice. Dana Goldstein has the run down of pro-choicers running in Senate races, choice-related ballot initiatives, and everything else in between. Make sure to check it out!

This story kinda slipped through the cracks, but apparently two Obama campaign volunteers didn't want women in head scarves to be sitting behind the podium for the picture. According to Politico.com,

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

For more about why this is not cool check out the Political Poet. Laura Fokkena at PopPolitics also has a post on the issue.

(More about Obama and Muslim supporters via NYTimes.)

via Michelle Obama Watch, a teaser for a Hardball segment on Michelle Obama featured "female silhouetted dancers." Apparently MSNBC was suggesting she adopt a "new outlook" of strictly tight miniskirts and stilettos. Michelle Obama Watch thinks the silhouettes look like strippers. And what's with the B-movie/pulp novel font?

MSNBC pulled the teaser, acknowledging it was "inappropriate." HuffPo has the video.

It really just keeps going and going. And we just continue to be disappointed.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies voted yesterday to continue funding the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program despite research over the last year that has proved over and over again the inefficacy of abstinence-only education.

The Democrats in Congress have failed to ax ab-only funding in the past, and for some reason they just seem to continue to allow millions of federal dollars to be filtered into these dangerous and ineffective programs.

RH Reality Check makes a good point that despite the fact that seventeen states have now refused Title V money for abstinence-only programs, Congress just can't seem to get a clue. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office made a statement:

"It’s hard to imagine a good reason why, in these tight economic times, Congress would intentionally flush taxpayer dollars down the drain by spending them on disproven, ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. We are floored that they continue to ignore study after study, and the consensus of the pubic health community, all concluding that these programs censor vital health care information, teach gender stereotypes, discriminate against lesbian and gay teens, and in some cases promote religion in the classroom in violation of the Constitution."