Has the media presented a fair and balanced version of the primary or have they taken an active role to preserve sexism?

In 1984,Gerry Ferraro burst onto the convention floor to accept the vice presidential nomination, it was a glorious moment for women across the country. Watching the convention reruns today still brings tears to my eyes. Since Mondale’s defeat, no Democratic presidential candidate has been willing to pick a female running mate. Twenty years later, Democratic “wisdom” still considers it political suicide to choose a woman vice presidential candidate. Most feminists had all but given up hope of ever seeing a woman president in our lifetime.



Then came Hillary, a brilliant, experienced, politically-savvy, strong, credible woman candidate with excellent feminist credentials. She is a feminist's dream, and a woman to make all women proud. Yes we're proud of the brilliance, strength,grace she reflects on all women who aspire to be more than men would have us be.



We expected sexism from men, and even from some of those women who aren't ready for women to leave traditional roles. And we expected despicable send-ups like the Hillary nutcracker, a "toy" whereby Hillary’s thighs crack your nuts. We expected such things from those Democratic party men who, for over twenty years, had refused to entertain the idea of a woman VP. But did we expect it from the media, from the hallowed presses who are supposed to be neutral? Did we expect that their sexism and misogyny would take an active role in choosing the Democratic nominee, rather than in simply reporting the race?



That a woman would dare to aspire to this last sacred male bastion seems to inspire virulent animosity within the mostly-male media, as evidenced by the stream of vicious attacks leveled at Hillary, this while her opponents goes unscathed. The recent remark about Hillary's "pimping" Chelsea on the campaign trail, is not even the first blatantly sexist slur. No, it's just one more in a long string of insults. In fact, the sexism and misogyny has sunk to a new low with this latest. Yet the Country seems to accept this in a way that they would certainly not accept racist remarks. In the US, blatant sexism is OK. It is OK for male “news reporters” to describe women as “hot. And it's OK for commentators like Joe Scarborough to refer to Hillary as “shrill” and to ask about her housekeeping skills.



When Sixty Minutes did co-interviews of Clinton and Obama; they asked Obama substantive questions while they cut off the top of Hillary’s head and asked her questions about her energy level and about why in school some had nicknamed her “frigidare.” It's bad enough that frustrated, (and mostly adolescent) males find fault with any woman who doesn't find them attractive. But does the media need to buy into this and give it substance? Once again, 60 Minutes' totally biased coverage passes public muster.



Furthermore, MSNB's Chris Matthews interviewed retired Gen McCaffrey about whether or not the troops would take orders from Hillary as Commander and Chief. McCaffrey responded: “Why wouldn't they listen to a female commander and chief ?” Matthews replies: “You're chuckling a little bit aren't you?” He continued to harangue McCaffrey as if he couldn't really be serious. This and many more incidents like it are all very OK. Women who aspire beyond their traditional roles are to be laughed at, ridiculed, degraded, and patronized and it is all OK!



Beyond the blatant sexism, one has to ask: why does the supposedly unbiased media attack one candidate with a vengeance and praise her opponent? Why do they analyze every breath she takes (for a possible negative spin) and avoid any scrutiny of Obama?

Why do they allow him the hypocrisy of declaring himself free from the financial influence of large PAC/lobbyists, while he in fact accepts bundled funds directly from corporations and special interests seeking favors?



According to Dan Morgan of the Los Angeles Times “Obama raised more than 1 million in the first three months from Law Firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nations capitol.” Morgan continues: “While refusing money directly from lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients. In the first quarter of 2007 he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington...“



The media says nothing about Obama's hypocritical claim to “clean money” while in fact he takes money from the same sources upon which politicians have always drawn. Why does the media continue to portray him as he would like to be portrayed, despite the facts. Why do they find ways to twist every fact or event into a negative for Hillary? Why do they have a double standard for Hillary and Barack? And even those media outlets who aren't blatantly sexist, often consign Clinton to relative invisibility whiles heaping volumes upon Obama.



So sexism is alive and well in the US media, while almost all criticism of Obama is dismissed as "racist." We've come a long way but still have far to go, even among our supposed friends

End of an Era

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of NOW and instigators of the modern women's movement, died this past week. Her life was spent fighting for the slow but steady progress made by the women's rights movement. She died as Alito was taking his seat on the Supreme Court. With his appointment women's representation on the Supreme Court drops back down to 11% from 22%. Women comprise over 50% of America, yet we are not entitled to anything more than token representation on the Supreme Court. There should be 4 or 5 women on the Court, if it were to reflect America.
It seem to me as if Ms Friedan's passing herald's the passing of the rights she fought for.
The Republicans are striving to undo Title IX and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans have been scheming to undo Roe v Wade and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans are not only opposed to abortion, but to sex education and birth control. Alito would support the decisions of pharmacists, stores, and physicians to refuse women birth control, because they have a religious objection to it. He has demonstrated a sympathy for those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.
Alito would not support any measures to fight discrimination.
What I don't understand is why any Senator who claims to be pro-choice could allow Alito to be seated on the Supreme Court. The so-called moderate Republicans are complicit in the radical actions of their party. Except for Sen. Chaffee, who did vote against Alito, they are afraid to stand up to their party. They allow it to run rampantly over women's rights.
I am disappointed in those Republicans who have become part of this right-wing juggernaut, by not resisting it. If the moderate Republicans do not resist and do not take back their party, they are as bad as the right-wingers. They empower them!!
The 4 Democrats who voted for Alito (Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad) should be ashamed of themselves. Democrats should primary them and replace them with real Democrats. They should replace them with Democrats who will support the Democratic platform. Democrats need to elect those Democrats who support the Democratic platform, not just someone who seems to be the most electable. A majority is useless without a majority of votes.
It is abhorent that Republicans have been allowed to redefine the role of the Senate in the confirmation of judges. Historically the Senate has rejected a multitude of judges and Justices. They rejected a Justice nominted by Washington, because they did not agree with his postion on the Jay Treaty.How is it that the founders could reject a Justice for his position, but we can't reject a Justice because of his position on Choice? Suddenly this is not what was intended by "advise and consent". The founders of our Country never intended for one person to have absolute control over the courts and nominations to them. When the Republicans are in control of the Presidency, they adamently maintain that "advise and consent" only means that the Senate must decide if the candidate is qualified. According to current rules, the Senate wouldn't even have a right to require an answer about the jay treaty. Our Founders intended that the people (via the Senate) have control over judicial appontments. This is not only a historical precedent, but it is the just and democratic process.
Why is it everyone accepts the Republican redefination as if it were undisputed fact?
The Republicans used the filibuster routinely when the Democrats were in control of the Senate. Now that they are in control they call it unfair and they threaten to change the rule. Why is it no one ever questions this turnabout from the Republicans? Why is it suddenly accepted that use of the filibuster is obstructing the government?
Jesse Helms would not let most of Clinton's Judicial nominees out of Committee, but they call Democrats obstructionists, if they don't allow an up or down vote. Why is it that Republicans can obstruct Democratic nominees, but when Democrats object to the appointment of Right-wing nuts by Republicans we forget the Republican obstruction?
Bob Dole stood up boldly to Clinton and warned him that they would not approve of a liberal Justice nominee, like Mario Cuomo or Lawrence Tribe. Suddenly the rules have changed agin and Democrats who are demanding a moderate appointee have no right. It is the Presidents decision. Why does no one remember this?
Why are the rules different for Democrats and Republicans?
Why does the press never notice that the rules are changed?
Why do they simply repeat what the Republicans say as if it were fact?
Are they lazy, ignorant, or complicit? I suspect a little of all three.
More and more broadcasting "journalists" are really actors. They are hired for their presence and entertaining abilities, rather than their journalistic training and expertise. Media is also being taken over by conservative sources, who control the message.
We must keep fighting. We must resurrect a media that will question and insist on fair and equal standards. We must give our all to ensure that Ms. Friedan's legacy is not removed. Her legacy and that of all the women who have battled for women's rights are at risk. We, who are their heirs, must keep their torch held high and flaming brightly.

Impeachment Polls

The mainstream media has stopped discussing the spying issue and decided that the public doesn't care. According to a Zogby poll Americans by a margin of 52%-43% said that "If President Bush wire tapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, they agree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." The judge's order won't delay legitimate taps to protect against terrorism. It does ensure they are legitimate and not part of a program of political spying.
Lori

Fair and Balanced

The meaning of words often tends to transform with time. Take the words cool or Gay or bad. This has obviously happened with fair and balanced. When applied to the media it used to mean an objective presentation of all the facts. Now it means (after the President complains):

Never question or challenge the President.

Even if he lies in order to take the Country into war, even if he exposes CIA agents to keep opponants quiet, even if he spies on Americans without a warrant; don't question him.

Don't show Dead Soldiers carried off a plane or report the causality numbers.

After viewing the CBS news coverage of the Senate Judiciary Hearing on January 11th it is obvious we have even another meaning.

When reporting on a confirmation hearing for a pivotal seat on the Supreme Court,

Never stress the important decisions that Justice will make!

Never discuss his past opinions and record.

Never discuss the fact that he refuses to provide answers to troubling questions about his past record.

Never dwell on the fact that a Justice cannot be removed and is on the Court for life (no matter how much he might mislead the Senate).

CBS's interpretation of fair and balanced obviously goes beyond this:

Do show the conflict and tempers.

Do show crying wives.

Do blame Democrats for persisting in requesting answers to questions that other Justice nominees have provided.

Do assume taht they would never want these answers but for the pressure of special interest groups.

Do blame the bully boy Democrats for making little girls cry.

This is a serious appointment. Liberty and lives are at stake and America has the right to know. This is far more important than the hurt feelings of Alito or his wife. If the media refuses to provide real fair and balanced news, how can our Democracy thrive?

Mr Schieffer doesn't have to worry about anyone making a movie about his life and career. He'll never be an Edward R. Murrow!

Lori

Dangers of HAVA

One of the changes that came out of the Republican controlled Congress after the fiasco of the Butterfly Ballot is the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). It sounds like an excellent thing! Unfortunately, it is like many of the bills Republicans pass with Orwellian names.
This legislation has forced New York State (along with the rest of the nation) to abandon the mechanical machines which are efficent and tamper proof for computerized machines.
The reason mechanical machines have worked so well is that they are set up and repaired by a member of each party. They cannot be rigged by one party. Every vote moves the counter forward by one. At the end of the day members from each party remove a paper record from the machine and lock it up. The machine can be double checked against that paper record. This part of the process is tamper proof.
We are abandoning this for computers. We can't provide enough people with the exepertise from each party to adequately supervise these computerized polls. What many localities are forced to resort to is allowing the manufacturer to "certify". This process is very open to tampering!! For more information read Assemblywoman Lifton's testimony to the Board of Elections.

Alito Nomination

The ultra right wing, who rejected Harriet Myers because they could not be certain that she was committeed to their agenda, continues to claim that they are looking for Judges without an agenda. They claim to be looking for strict constructionists. They are not!! They are looking for Judges with their agenda. They are looking for Judges who will overturn Roe V. Wade. They are looking for Judges who will end Title IX. They claim to be looking for Judges who support States Rights (if the state wants to ban abortions), but they oppose States Rights, if that state wants to allow same sex marriage. They are looking for Judges who will rule for corporations over the employee or consumer.

This is about ensuring that our Supreme Court will protect the basic rights freedoms and privacy of the individual. This is about ensuring that our Supreme Court will be there to protect the average person against the goliath, when that is the just action.

Samuel Alito has not shown that he can be this kind of justice and in fact his record shows just the opposite. While he wiggles around about his former record and statements (which are racist, sexist, and vehemently against choice), He has not eased my concerns.

I am not assured that he would respect Stare Decisis in a case where he so obviously believes that the Constitution does not provide the Right to Choice. He will not be the first Justice to mislead the Senate and show his true colors only when they are beyond reach.

Senator Schumer demonstrated most effectively that Judge Alito has not respected Stare Decisis well at the circuit court level.

I have also been very disappointed with Sen Spector. While he claims to be pro-choice, he is promoting the Republican line, (that NOW was all upset over Souter and he has supported Roe). This is used to invalidate our concerns. It should be noted that we are right more than we are wrong about Court appointments. We were right about Thomas and Scalia. That makes us right 2/3 times. Sen Spector was wrong about Thomas and Scalia. That makes him right 1/3 times. I guess we are a better judge that he.

For more information go to NOW website.
Lori

Goverment Spies

Over 30 years ago a President was brought down for spying on the other party. There will never be another Watergate, because now the President has claimed the authority to spy on anyone he chooses without any checks or disclosures.

When one considers the dirty tricks that this administration has employed on individuals who challenge or dissent with their opinion, it is not a far leap to believe that they are spying on anyone who disagrees with their position on the war, choice supreme court nominations....
Was this going on during the last Presidential election? Did they have access to the private conversations and strategy of the Kerry Campaign? Can we ever have another fair election, if they do?
Lori

Welcome to Tompkins County NOW's Blog. We are just starting up, so please be patient.
Lori