Looking for candy in all the wrong places

Luckily.

Almost 3 weeks with no added sugar.

Wow — I actually tore through the kitchen looking for the odd candy bar. Luckily if it’s there (and I’m pretty sure it is) it’s hidden too well for me.

In other news I’m on day 4 of a hideous headache. And that’s why there haven’t been any of my regularly scheduled posts.

How are things going with you?  Are your commitments holding up?

 

Kill this rumor: Hillary as VP in 2012

The Washington Post says the Hillary Clinton for VP in 2012 rumor just won’t die.

It won’t die because troublemakers like the Chris Cilizza at the Washington Post keep bringing it up.

I guess the expectation setting that reporters and party leaders tried recently that if we just let Barack win this year, we’ll get to vote for Hillary in 2016 wasn’t working, especially with women in full panic and fury mode. We could almost hear Pelosi’s syrupy voice saying, “And won’t that be nice for all you ladies?  Here’s a biscuit, {{pat, pat on head}}, now go take an old, cold tater and wait.”

To which I say, “Ok, then I’ll skip voting for president this election cycle and wait.  You sound so SURE that she’s going to run.  I wouldn’t do it in 2016 if I were her.  I mean, if she ran in 2012, it would be like running for her second term but in 2016?  Ehhhh, I’m just not diggin’ it.  She’ll be 68, not that it’s old but at some point, you have to retire just to get a nice afternoon nap once in awhile.  And by then, the new generation of voters will not remember the Clinton years.  She’ll be like Andropov or Chernyenko, who they also probably don’t remember.  So, you know, I’m a skeptic about 2016 but if Nancy says it’s true and she’s not just pacifying us, thinking we’re too stupid or naive to figure things out, well, ok, I’ll call her bluff and wait until 2016 because there is no f^&*ing way I am going to vote for that misogynist in the White House. Nah-gah-happen.”

But there’s a bigger reason why I doubt you could make her take the VP slot in 2012.  I don’t think she wants it.  And I don’t think she wanted it in 2008, which is probably why she made the pre-emptive move and asked for State first.  I’m guessing that Joe Biden was destined for State but the positions got flipped.

And why would she want to pass on VP?  Biden, who??  What has he done in the past 4 years?  Sure, there may be some women who temporarily (because we would quickly set them straight) might fall for the Hillary as VP gambit as being a big win for women.  But as VP, she’s going to be deep-sixed.  Unless she rings some concessions from the party and Obama, she will be treated like an ornament, brought out like some shiny, mesmerizing object whenever Obama needs to silence the grumbling of dissatisfied women.  Why the hell would she ever sign on to something so utterly beneath her formidable talents and contrary to her personal convictions?

So, if the Washington Post wants to continue playing this game, go right ahead.  What it is REALLY saying is that the Republicans have analysed the electorate pretty well, are going to divide and conquer the women’s vote and Obama will start to see his re-election chances slipping away because women are not united for the Democratic party.  Thanks for confirming that.

Of course, the party could always go bold and swap out Obama for Hillary.  The Republicans have analysed this too.  They’re probably guessing that the Democrats don’t have the cojones to do it.  So, they’re going to try to win by the skin of their teeth than make a bold move.  That means they’re going to pander to every group imaginable and go with no particular Democratic platform in particular.  Whisper sweet nothings in the ears of each constituency and hope they don’t compare notes before the election.

And that, dear friends, is the end of the Democratic party as we have known it.  They have just mutated themselves out of existence.

Have I got that right?  My record has been pretty good in the last 4 years so…

Kinder Kuche Kirche

If my German is correct, that title translates to Children, Kitchen, Church.

Yesterday, in response to the very ill-conceived and short sighted WORK bill that is being proposed by progressive Democrats, of all people, I posted an article about the German proposal to do roughly the same thing.  In Germany, the government coalition is proposing to pay low income women a stipend to stay home and take care of their kids instead of spending that money on badly needed daycare.  German women are the one European female constituency that is still constrained by traditional female roles because daycare options are so few.  I advise anyone who is still suffering from the delusion that all low income women need is more money thrown at them to read this article.  It spells out in detail why other options are more effective at bringing women out of poverty, the primary cure being good quality, low cost, subsidized childcare and training programs.  And a real jobs program.

This morning, reader Pips found a link to a photoessay of 19 German women explaining why they opposed the subsidy.  You can find the link here.  If you’re using Google Chrome, the browser will automatically translate the page into English for you.

So, what does it all mean?  Well, to me, non-poli sci, non-ivy league college graduate, non-young, white male paid blogger that I am, the election strategy of both parties this year is to appeal to white men and to force women back into their traditional role. That way, they look like they’re trying to do something about unemployment when they’re really not, and they get the bonus of appealing to conservative voters.  The big stink about SAHMs vs Working Moms should have tipped you off.  Other things to consider:

1.) The US Congress consists of about 16% females.  If the right wing noise machine starts catapulting the propaganda heavily, women in Congress haven’t got a chance to hold off any legislation that will have the effect, directly or indirectly, of keeping women out of the job market.

2.) We have two presidential candidates who have SAHM wives.  This is no accident.  Michelle could have been a champion for working mothers.  Her kids do not need full time care.  Heck, they didn’t even need after school care.  BTW, when Chelsea Clinton grew up in the White House it was Bill who used to help her with her homework.  Despite the absence of a full time, stay at home mother, Chelsea managed to overcome the deprivations of her childhood and turned out ok.  But Michelle decided to hang up her hard earned law degree and stay at home- gardening.  If you haven’t asked yourself why in the past 4 years, it is never too late.

3.) Ron Suskind wrote in his book Confidence Men about the Obama White House that when he took office in 2009, Barack Obama’s first priority in the area of unemployment was to put men back to work doing manly construction type jobs.  His idea was that men needed to feel like men and being unemployed was harshing their manly mojo.  Women’s jobs?  ehhhhhh, not so much.  Yes, Naomi Wolf’s TV orgasm about Obama’s “feminism” *does* look moronic in retrospect. Why do you ask?

4.) Women’s organizations are nowhere to be found.  No rally on the mall, no occupy events, no million hoodie march.  Nada.  I have no idea what they’re up to except they seem to be a lot more concerned with gun control and marriage equality than, you know, WOMEN.

5.) In the beginning of the Great Recession, men were losing more jobs because women were still overrepresented in teaching and public sector jobs.  In the “recovery”, more women are losing their jobs and are having a much harder time getting hired again.  Again, where are women’s organizations on this?  {{crickets}}

Bottom line: This is an attack on working women.  The male politicians of both parties have unilaterally decided that they are going to champion a child, kitchen, church role for women this election cycle and you are going to go along with it because you have no place to go (they think.  BTW, if you want to vote for a real African American Socialist for president this year, Stewart Alexander is your man. Not endorsing.  Just saying, there are choices.).  If you are a woman with a degree and you have an actual career, it’s going to be a lot more difficult to advance in it because the attitude that you are shirking both your motherly duties AND your work duties is going to become more commonplace.

We should have seen this coming 4 years ago.  Thanks for nothing, guys.