It's NOT Demeaning to Women

In his choice for VP, was John McCain first and foremost concerned with whether the person was capable of being President of the United States? Or was he concerned about whether the person could bring him the electoral votes of rural, conservative, female voters in swing states? Just three weeks ago, on Face the Nation, Karl Rove was intensely critical of the possibility that Barack Obama might choose Gov. Tim Kaine for his Vice President. Rove said:

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

Somehow, posing this same question about a women is now out of bounds. Watching Larry King Live tonight, it's clear that the Republican talking point-anytime someone questions whether or not McCain's choice for VP is qualified for the position-is to claim that such scrutiny is "demeaning to women." Why? Because Democrats blanch whenever they're accused of being unfair, and quickly retreat from allegations of sexism. In this instance, we certainly owe it to the electorate to get over ourselves.

Questioning a VP's readiness to serve is a core issue and is most certainly appropriate for men and women. Attacking family is out of bounds; questioning preparedness to be President is not only appropriate, it's the responsibility of the electorate. One in three Vice Presidents have actually become President, so the question is surely relevant.

Fighting for the equal treatment of women, working to help qualified women get elected and helping knock down barriers so that women can participate in professions that were once off-limits is important work that is diminished anytime a women gets a pass because of her gender. Whenever that happens, it reinforces the myth that, in politics or in business, the bar for women is lower and makes it more difficult to construct the ladder women need to get elected. The perception that a women has been added to a ticket for any reason other than being eminently qualified reflects negatively on every women who seeks any office.

Failing to fully vet Sarah Palin-now that's demeaning to women.

Choosing a Vice President is the first act of any presidential candidate that has the potential to actually impact the course of democracy in our country. In his choice of a person who has limited experience in government, zero experience in foreign affairs and a basic lack of understanding of what a VP is actually supposed to do, John McCain has behaved in a reckless manner that ought to give every American pause. Unlike Presidential candidates who must survive a grueling primary process and endless vetting by the public and the press, Vice Presidential candidates get little scrutiny. We rely on our Presidential candidates to do the vetting for us when it comes to the VP nominee. It is the first moment when the future of the county is in the hands of the Presidential hopeful. It is the first moment when we are able to see whether the candidate will actually put country before political interest. And it was in this moment that John McCain failed not just his Party, but his country.

Sphere: Related Content

If You Can't Win, Cheat

Heading toward next year's general election, we'd all better remember the classic GOP mantra: if you can't win, cheat. The big corporate interests that fueled the neo-conservative rise to power stand to lose a great deal if Democrats take control of government, and they do not intend to go quietly. Let me be clear: I am not talking about rank and file republican voters here. I am talking about the big corporate interests and their lawyers who actually run the party and fund the campaigns. For them, this effort has never been about furthering democracy; it is about keeping great wealth in the pockets of a few. Period. It's really not more complicated than that. The rest of us better understand that this is a street fight, and they will respect no rules. They will throw a hand full of sand in our eyes and then start punching.

According the The New York Times and MyDD, they have already started gathering those first few fist-fulls of sand. The Times reports today about the possibility that California will move to split it's electoral votes, awarding them based on who wins a particular congressional district rather than the winner of the state taking all. The group that is leading this fight is headed by some of the same Republican trial lawyers who helped successfully litigate Bush v. Gore. They are gathering the signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot in June of 2008, and they are readying for the inevitable constitutional challenge should the measure pass. Why? Because if California splits it's electoral votes, then an estimated 20 electoral votes could be awarded to the GOP nominee, even if the Democrat wins the state. That is the equivalent of Ohio, and will be very hard for Democrats to overcome. Here's the story, In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?

MyDD points to an article, Tracking Political Prosecutions, by Scott Horton published today in Harper's Magazine. According the article, the Bush administration used the Department of Justice to target key potential funders of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The DOJ investigations focused on lawyers and included raids of their offices and threats of criminal prosecution. The purpose was to dry up a key source of funds for these likely presidential candidates. Here's an excerpt:

In the last two weeks, two sources, one of them inside of the Justice Department, have told me that a scheme was hatched in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration shortly after it took office in 2001 or early in 2002. The project identified John Edwards and Hilary Clinton as likely Democratic challengers to President Bush, and identified prominent trial lawyers around the United States as the likely financial vehicle for Edward’s rise. It directed that their campaign finance records be fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses.

This is Watergate on steroids.

Sphere: Related Content

Cleaning Up Before the General

The exits of Rove and Gonzoles may have Democrats cheering, but this is nothing more than a little Fall cleaning, designed to gussy up the White House in time for next year's elections. And it's working. While Bush and the War in Iraq are still hugely unpopular, both are out-done by a Congress displaying a favorability rating of 18%. We need to remember that the GOP knows how to win elections. They know about the short attention span of voters and that how things appear is-when it comes to elections-more important than how things are. They're cleaning house. What are we going to do to get out own house in order before 2008?

Sphere: Related Content

Roverian Ambition

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us?

Rove is leaving the White House, and says he's going hunting. I suspect that he'll spend most of his time stalking Democrats. Out of the talk show circuit, his most recent target has been Hillary Clinton who he describes as "fatally flawed." Some suggest, and I agree, that Rove does not speak casually. He speaks with purpose, and his purpose now is the same as it was when he turned his guns on Kerry during the 2004 primary season. The Republicans want to run against Clinton. That's their best chance of victory. He is hoping to drive Democrats toward Clinton, the Democrat with the highest unfavorables, by attacking her. It worked in 2004 when they got to run against Kerry instead of against John Edwards, the candidate they feared the most. Here's an excerpt of the Newsday article:

The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a post-mortem conference at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. In the run-up to the Democratic National Convention, at a time when it was not yet clear who Bush's opponent would be in November 2004, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, they believed, Edwards could be a real threat to Bush's re-election. But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at Kerry. Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to the GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists feared most.

Sphere: Related Content