Feminist Election Survival Tips: Privileged Political Pundits

Watching campaign coverage can be trying. Especially when the talking heads seem hell-bent on relying on racist and sexist sound-bites in lieu of substantive commentary. So to get you through the hard times, my Feministing co-blogger Ann and I proudly present ....

The Privileged Political Pundit Drinking Game

• Drink anytime someone refers to Clinton's teary moment in NH as "crying," "sobbing," "weepy," or "contrived."

• Take a drink for every "magical negro" reference to Obama.
• Take one drink anytime someone calls Clinton "shrill" or "screechy."
• Chug one whenever you hear of, see, or read Maureen Dowd. Always.
• Two drinks anytime anyone expresses the sentiment that Edwards is at a disadvantage because he isn't black or female.
• Take a shot when a pundit refers to Clinton as (or implies she is) a nagging bitch or cackling witch.
• Drink for any lamenting that white-dude voters are being ignored.
• Take a healthy gulp every time someone describes Obama as "clean" or "articulate."
• Take two shots whenever someone implies that women only vote with their vaginas.
• Warning: Do not watch Chris Matthews under any circumstances--doing so could induce alcohol poisoning.

Comments (44)

1. LOL!!!

   I hope you don't think I am a sexist for saying that Hillary could come across as more personable and this would HELP her candidacy.

   I work with a lot of very professional women and they don't feel they have to wear pantsuits or act like men to be taken seriously.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/11/2008 @ 8:19pm

2. Speaking of substantive issues, when you look at Hillary's Senate voting record and compare it to Feingold, who we all know is a real progressive, there are some interesting differences on war crimes liability, voting rights, the environment, education, and defense.

   When Obama joined the Senate in 2005, it appears that Hillary began "gaming her votes" so that they didn't "appear" much different than Barack's, but her pre-2005 record is VERY interesting as it shows Hillary's true centrist/conservative colors:

   1. International Courts Amendment for US War Crimes (HR 3338)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   2. Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Increase Voting (HR 3295)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   3. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   4. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   5. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   6. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   7. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/11/2008 @ 8:22pm

3. The International Courts amendment referred to in my last post was an amendment violating international law and exempting US officials and military personnel from war crimes prosecution.

   That is one of those things that make you go, hmmm? (I know you don't like Arsenio, MASK, but his "hmmm thing" really is appropriate here - heheh!)

   Hmmmm....I wonder what war crimes Hillary is planning if she is elected president?

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/11/2008 @ 8:27pm

4. Every citizen must demand - from every candidate for office, from every Congressional Representative and Senator now in office an answer to the question:

   What have you done to fulfill your Oath of Office, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, in the face of the many credible allegations of impeachable offence leveled against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney?

   How can you ask anyone to vote for you in the face of such failure?

   Posted by willyboyat6 at 01/11/2008 @ 8:53pm

5. Especially when the talking heads seem hell-bent on relying on racist and sexist sound-bites in lieu of substantive commentary.

   I take it we should apply this "substantive commentary" standard to your posts as well? How do you think you're doing?

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/11/2008 @ 9:22pm

6. I've never heard the phrase "magical negro", but thanks for introducing me to the term. I guess.

   I'm with you for the most part, particularly when it comes to Chris Matthews. He used to be a proud shill for the Fascists taking over our country. Now that they threw him out of their tea party, he's stuck with being a shill for himself. Talk about being a bitch & a cackler.

   And as a white dude, I can assure you I haven't heard one talking mcluhan bozo trying to stick up for me. The pricks & prins stuck into "white men" at every single turn are taken for granted nowadays, you know, all those big, bad white men deserve it and all that. I'm sure you've drunk to it a few times yourself, you and your blogging sister...Ann is it?

   My sister's middle name is Anne, named after her great grandmother. Now there was a lady who used to know how to keep the boys in line.

   Posted by Scrub at 01/11/2008 @ 9:23pm

7. Posted by METTEYYA 01/11/2008 @ 8:22pm

   METT, I don't care for HRC, but I'm glad she voted against the International court amendment.

   Posted by ACook at 01/11/2008 @ 11:09pm

8. Posted by ACOOK 01/11/2008 @ 11:09pm

   Why are you glad, ACook?

   I would LOVE to see Bush/Cheney hauled before the International Court and try to defend themselves against the war crimes they have committed against the Iraqi people. This notion that America is somehow above international law when it is inconvenient, but can hold others to the letter of international law when it suits our purpose is shameful and destroys US credibility around the world and damages our legitimacy in playing a leadership role in world affairs!

   If you think that somehow The Hague would not give Bush and Cheney a fair shake, but a US court would, then you really don't understand the serious flaws in the US criminal justice system or the improvements on these flaws that have been made by the international courts.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/11/2008 @ 11:19pm

9. Posted by ACOOK 01/11/2008 @ 11:09pm

   I think making up a big lie about Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction to get one man who was NOT behind 9/11 and was relatively tame after the first gulf war, and kill +100,000 innocent Iraqis in the process, sound like a war crime to me. And what US court would ever find these war criminal guilty of anything?

   When you are an actor on the international stage, international courts are necessary to maintain objectivity and impartiality. Without such, no justice could ever be achieved.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/11/2008 @ 11:33pm

10. "Take two shots whenever someone implies that women only vote with their vaginas."

    Might need some tequilla while READING too, Ms Valenti. Like "The Nation"?

    "How Clinton Won Women in NH"---Posted by Ari Berman at 01/11/2008 @ 10:43am???

    Posted by Mask at 01/12/2008 @ 07:52am

11. "Take two shots whenever someone implies that women only vote with their vaginas."

    is that why you've switched to electric voting machines?

    or is it because of the hanging chad controversy?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 09:33am

12. Take a drink anytime you get lectured about referring to Hillary as a bitch by someone who referred to an MRA as an asshole in their previous article..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/12/2008 @ 10:19am

13. I think making up a big lie about Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/11/2008 @ 11:33pm

    The Big Lie started over 10 years ago. WHich is why it won't be brought up anytime soon. (Hint) Someone who was very close to the administration that started the big lie is running for POTUS in '08.

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    Posted by Sliver at 01/12/2008 @ 10:52am

14. Posted by METTEYYA 01/11/2008 @ 11:19pm

    International courts raise the problem of sovereignty. This case is instructive:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/11/2008 @ 11:33pm

    You should also update your statistics, Lancet put the estimate between 426,369-793,663 with a best guess of 601027 as a result of violence or ~655,000 total as of July 2006.

    http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066949 19.pdf

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/12/2008 @ 11:09am

15. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/12/2008 @ 11:09am

    SR,

    Did you READ the info in the link you provided on international courts?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

    In that link, it shows exactly why international courts MUST HAVE jurisdiction over US behavior!

    First, if you look at how the judges voted, only the US, Japan, and the UK judge ignored the evidence and the rest of the 14 judges found the US guilty!

    When enforcement of the judgment came up in the UN General Assembly after 5 veto attempts by the US in the Security Council, ONLY Israel and El Salvador (two US client states) voted against enforcement and +190 countries sided with the international court.

    This is a classic case why the international courts cannot be ignored and why Hillary's vote was so Bush-Cheney-like. The US cannot meddle willy-nilly in the affairs of any nation irrespective of the will of the people of the world or international law that we have agreed to abide by. It is this kind of arrogance and insensitivity that makes America hated around the world and the target of attack by terrorists. It is this kind of arrogance that keeps us on code orange in which we "never" can get to code green and return to normalcy!

    Wake up people, Hillary wants to continue US arrogance and keep us living in fear! This ain't CHANGE folks, it is just more of the same.

    America deserves better, America deserves to live in true security by getting to code green So all progressives should unite to defeat Hillary by supporting Barack Obama.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 11:52am

16. Alibama and Hillary Rotten...

    Does anyone else think that's really lame?

    Posted by MMe at 01/12/2008 @ 1:55pm

17. Posted by MME 01/12/2008 @ 1:55pm

    You have to excuse RIO or put him on "ignore"

    He is a right-wing nut who can't get any argument on the right-wing blogs so comes over here trying to pick a fight. He subscribes to the "Christian Identity" (<---Google this) school in which the whole world is supposed to serve white Christian males because this is how God wants it, right RIO?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 2:08pm

18. Oh I misspoke in my last post....

    I should have said "American white Christian males" as the Christian Identity folks don't think "foreigners" are blessed by God!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 2:11pm

19. Posted by METTEYYA 01/12/2008 @ 11:52am

    You do make it a chore to have a dialogue with you when you get so wrapped up in your rhetoric that you don't bother to understand the issue fully.

    The relevant section of that link is the U.S. defense, particularly, "The US also argued that the Court has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree..." and in the subsequent actions by the U.S., and this issue of sovereignty you don't give much indication that you even understand the issue much less account for in your arguments. You would also be well served by looking at the International Court of Justice in Wikipedia too.

    And for the record, I'm for international law - but you can't get to enforcable international law until you deal with the issue of sovereignty.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/12/2008 @ 5:22pm

20. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/12/2008 @ 5:22pm

    Sovereignty can't be looked at in isolation and "only" from the point of view of the country asserting it. Only rogue leaders look at the world this way. Responsible nations that are part of the international dcommunity must obey certain norms of conduct as to not disrupt the lives of nations affected by their actions.

    If the US were to act in "isolation", in which its actions had "no" affect on the nations around her, then certainly "sovereignty" concerns would be favored over the international community's interest, but as long as American actions have direct and substantial effect on a significant number of people "outside of America", then the interests of these people and the community in which all nations belong must prevail.

    At the very least, the controversy must be brokered or adjudicated by an impartial body outside the sphere and influence of the affected nations. I think any concept of "justice" must have this at a minimum, or you really have the situation as we have here with Iraq, in which there is no justice for the dozens of countries in the region that are directly affected and no justice for the Iraqi people.

    The central purpose of international law is to provide a common framework within which nations will act, and which aggrieved nations may seek justice. If the US does not want to work within this common framework, then it loses its legitimacy to lead the world. One can lead with military might alone, one must cultivate sufficient moral leadership in which the vast majority of the world agrees with your actions.

    Otherwise, what is the difference between George Bush and any common dictator who doesn't like the leader of another nation and invades to initiate "regime change"?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 5:43pm

21. Oops...that was supposed to read "one can[not] lead with military might alone.."

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 5:45pm

22. BTW....wouldn't...

    "Warning: Do not watch Chris Matthews under any circumstances--doing so could induce alcohol poisoning."

    mean NEVER seeing your boss on TV, Ms Valenti?

    Posted by Mask at 01/12/2008 @ 8:02pm

23. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/12/2008 @ 8:47pm

    Sorry Jomamma, but Jessica seemed to suggest in her article that there is not enough substantive discussion of Hillary as a candidate, so looking at how she voted in the Senate and trying to square that with what most progressives like Feingold think are important issues is a useful exercise.

    A lot a people say..."yeah, I know Hillary is a centrist"...without ever really understanding what that means. Or they think Hillary also represents change without really evaluating her record. I think it is a useful exercise to point out her votes in the senate like the one on the jurisdiction of international courts because her position is "exactly" the same as George Bush and Dick Cheney, and this has led to American being hated around the world for its arrogance and putting itself above the law that it wants to hold other nations to.

    The only way we are going to get to code green and stop this charade in the airport security line is if we address these root causes of terrorism and begin to change the behavior and legal position of America on the international stage.

    Do you really think George Bush or Dick Cheney would have invaded Iraq on phony evidence of WMD if they knew they could be hauled before an international court and face the music for their war crimes?

    Think about it - that Hillary vote is more significant than you think if you are interested in changing the perception of America around the world.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/12/2008 @ 9:23pm

24. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/12/2008 @ 9:41pm

    but sometimes people are international assholes.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 10:05pm

25. Hillary Clinton in Selma, Alabama, shooting the shit w/black floks, as the First Black President's Black wife:

    "Aww don't feel noways tired. I've come too faarrr from where I started frum. . . . Aww could have listened all day luung."

    Posted by Happy at 01/12/2008 @ 11:22pm

26. Posted by HAPPY 01/12/2008 @ 11:22pm

    i had never heard anything so pathetic.

    i can't wait to hear the candidates talk to the indian* (asian) constituent.

    *they will:

    $60,093 – the median income of Indian-American families, nearly double the median income of all American families -- $38,885 (source, US Census Bureau)

    http://www.usinpac.com/indian_americans.asp

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 11:34pm

27. ms. valenti,

    i've noticed in your picture that you have no red background.

    does this mean you're better than the other writers?

    or perhaps, is it that they think you're not worth it?

    and why are you not wearing glasses?

    got something against astigmatists?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2008 @ 12:34am

28. I don't believe in a world court(I can just see Chavez, Castro and Kim il Dung as judges)

    Why is a world court good enough for "other" nations but not good enough for the US? We applaud the world court when it brings the Milosevic's of the world to justice, but scold it when it decides that the US was wrong for mining the harbors of Nicaragua?

    It is this sort of "we're above the law" arrogance that emboldens the Chavezes and Kim iL Dungs of the world because they look at our own behavior - they look at us "saying" we are concerned about the spread of WMD and then fail to reduce our stockpiles of these same weapons. They look at our "talk" about freedom and democracy and then our actions in coddling dictators that support American business "interests".

    This American double-standard is simply unhelpful in changing the perception of America as an international bully. And like most bullies, those that are picked on finally get tired and stand up, and this is the root of our so-called terrorist problem.

    Hillary has signaled that more America as the bully is the approach she will take, which is the same approach as Bush and Cheney. Barack is saying we can do better, we can truly change the perception of America so that no one is compelled to stand up to the American bully, because the bully has been transformed into a responsible world citizen that respects the rights of other nations.

    If America really wants to lead the world, then we need to get off our high horse of thinking we are a "do it alone" prima donna like Kobe Bryant and become more like the team players of Magic Johnson and Jason Kidd who see the entire court and are always playing a constructive role of making everyone on the court a better player, including ourselves.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/13/2008 @ 05:06am

29. Posted by METTEYYA 01/12/2008 @ 5:43pm

    The problem METTEYYA is power creep. The United States is an excellent example. When the individual states joined the union, each had their own sovereignty and was joining to achieve a common purpose, just as you are proposing here. The problem is that it didn't take even more than a couple of decades before the newly created federal government started usurping power and now we are in a position where states don't really have any sovereignty.

    So, sovereignty is a central issue. It's the same problem that the framers of the Constitution were wrestling with, Federalist Papers and all of that, but now, instead of Vermontians not wanting Virginians to tell them what to do, we have the United States worried about North Korea, Bolivia, or whatever.

    It's a tricky problem, and it is much more difficult to execute once you get beyond the idea that it's a "good idea".

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/13/2008 @ 10:04am

30. It's the same problem that the framers of the Constitution were wrestling with, Federalist Papers and all of that, but now, instead of Vermontians not wanting Virginians to tell them what to do, we have the United States worried about North Korea, Bolivia, or whatever.

    Bingo!

    And how did we resolve this, SR? Remember the Commerce Clause from law school, and the artfully interpreted "affecting interstate commerce" set of cases?

    Here is the point: If America does not AFFECT other nations with her actions, then the balance tips in favor of national sovereignty, but when America mines the harbors of other nations or invades nations that have NOT attacked her and have NOT provided a safe haven for those who have, then international courts, international justice, and the interests of the international community must prevail!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/13/2008 @ 11:08am

31. Posted by METTEYYA 01/13/2008 @ 11:08am

    You apparently missed the point I made about power creep and how that the Constition failed to maintain state sovereignty, and we need to think of a better way of addressing this issue.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/13/2008 @ 12:34pm

32. "Why is a world court good enough for "other" nations but not good enough for the US?"...

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/13/2008 @ 05:06am

    I don't think it is good for anyone..we all live by different cultural mores and customs..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/13/2008 @ 2:02pm

33. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/13/2008 @ 12:34pm

    Well put,...our friend Mertta is just anti American unless it is weakened..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/13/2008 @ 2:04pm

34. MBB,

    Exactly.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/13/2008 @ 2:06pm

35. MMB<

    BTW I will be in HOPKINS next week!!!

    Go Packers...(gave up on the Vikes after Tarketon/Grant years).

    Posted by john maasch at 01/13/2008 @ 2:07pm

36. I just loven the silence on the endorsements of Obama by 2 giants of Feminism as Jessicas practices...

    ...Hart and Ol' Jesse...

    ....all we here is crickets...priceless.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/13/2008 @ 2:11pm

37. (Same with Milosivich. the toothless court denounced him without end. It took the US to actually get him inside the courtroom.)

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/13/2008 @ 1:42pm

    time for the bifocals....................

    A few months earlier, Slobodan Milosevic had appeared before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague on the charge of genocide, becoming the only former head of state to be tried for crimes against humanity by such a tribunal. He accused the court of being a tool of realpolitik wielded by major Western powers; Western officials have routinely dismissed such allegations as conspiracy theories. They will have a much harder time making that argument with Florence Hartmann, a former official at the ICTY, who in Paix et châtiment: Les guerres secrètes de la politique et de la justice internationales (Peace and Punishment: The Secret Wars of Politics and International Justice), published in September in France, describes how the ICTY has been hampered not only by the predictable obstruction of Balkan governments but also by the meddling hands of its main sponsors--France, Britain and the United States. Hartmann openly accuses them of sabotaging the court's work by infiltrating its personnel, withholding key evidence and failing to arrest two of its main indictees--Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic--for more than a decade.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/perelman

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2008 @ 2:38pm

38. I don't think it is good for anyone..we all live by different cultural mores and customs..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/13/2008 @ 2:02pm

    i think "thou shalt not slaughter innocents" is pretty much universal.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2008 @ 2:43pm

39. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/13/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Yet you ignore our mining of the Nicaraguan harbors and the International Court's decision in this case?

    Come on MBB, you can't have it both ways - bringing rogue dictators before the court and then exempting ourselves!

    This is the problem with Hillary's vote; it places America above the same international law to which it wants to subject other nations and other leaders.

    When other nations and people "outside" of America look at this, they say "what a farce", and "who does America think she is?" It is this DOUBLE-STANDARD that emboldens the Chavezes and the Kim il Dungs of the world, and increases hate toward America by would-be terrorists.

    If we are ever going to get to Code Green, you must address this world perception and change it, and I think it starts with subjecting ourselves to the same rules we want every other nation to play by.

    Surely, in the future, I think an "international force", NOT America should play the role of the world cop, because as the Nicaraguan case demonstrates, America cannot be trusted as an impartial and unbiased arbiter in world affairs.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/13/2008 @ 2:54pm

40. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/13/2008 @ 1:42pm

    You make it sound like the U.S. wants to comply with the U.N., the World Court and what not. When the reality is that the U.S. poses even more of a danger than dictators, precisely because of its capability. The Nicaragua vs. the United States is instructive on this point because you cannot claim the Sandinistas look anything like Hussein, Kim or your dictator of choice.

    The problem isn't just the other guy, it's also U.S.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/13/2008 @ 4:00pm

41. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/13/2008 @ 2:11pm

    Giants of feminism? How do you figure?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/13/2008 @ 4:37pm

42. Drink for any lamenting that white-dude voters are being ignored

    of course, if jessica substitued "black" or "women" voters, in place of "white dude" voters, she would widely be considered a racist or sexist.

    be careful, jessica, your immaturity shines through with every sentence.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/14/2008 @ 12:09am

43. By the way, TECHNICALLY, when the US got permission from the UN to invade Iraq, we didn't say they had WMD. We said Iraq was out of compliance with UN directives and we invaded to determine complinace, all of which is completely true. We thought they had WMD, as did every other member of the security council. But we were not asked to prove they had WMD to invade. The flagrant refusal to voluntarily cooperate (kind of like the Intl court) is what provided legal justification for invation

    this is only partially true. first of all, the UN alone cannot grant permission for the USA to invade another country. only congress can do so. and when congress did do so, the condition was that the inspectors had to finish the inspections (which they didn't).

    we invaded without satisfying this condition.

    therefore, there was no legal justification.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/14/2008 @ 12:13am

44. and it's so extraordinarily ironic when our "ambassador" bolton, who routinely disparages the integrity of the UN, so desperately needs the UN to achieve his goals.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/14/2008 @ 12:44am