I Voted.

Did you?

Me, dressed as Sarah Palin on Halloween. Obama '08!!

Hott 4 Hill 2 - My Presidential Love Song

If you guys don't remember, there was a video circling around the internet during the time when Hillary was vying for the Democratic Presidential nomination. It was called "Hott 4 Hill" and it was created by a girl named Taryn Southern who's really making a name for herself on the internet. Plus, she's quite the hottie too. Well, Taryn is at it again with another round of presidential love... and here's a message from Taryn herself:

"We're less than three weeks away from the BIG election.

You may remember an internet video I posted last year called Hott 4 Hill (yes, the lesbian one).

For the past year, I said I wouldn't make a follow-up...but...I couldn't help it! What can I say, Palin "inspired" me.


SO - whether you're Gaylin' for Paylin, Bi for Biden, Mad for McCain, or maybe you just have a good 'ol-fashioned Crush on Obama...I hope you enjoy the vid, and of course, don't forget to vote this Nov. 4th!!


And in honor of Hillary's pantsuits, that's all folks."

Republicans Already Stealing Votes in West Virginia and Not Doing It Very Well in California

(Check out the voting technology in your state here. Also, check out stealbackyourvote.org.)

West Virginians have reported electronic voting machines flipping votes for Obama to McCain.

Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the [Republican] county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

"When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.

These types of problems have been occurring since 2000; why haven't they been fixed yet?



Here's what another WV resident had to say:

Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

"I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way."

Republicans are responsible for election oversight in both of the counties where fraud has been reported. They are giving the media all the same snarky lying bullshit that they spewed in 2004 and 2006 about it being the voters' faults, the incidents being isolated, blah blah blah. We've all heard this before! and the consequences are no less dire.

But Ma'amselle, you say, maybe it's just a computing error and not anything intentional. Then why is it that there has never been an instance of GOP votes switching to Democratic in the 4+ years this has been happening?

Congress has been remiss in passing legislation to ban these pernicious electronic voting machines. My least favorite Democratic Senator next to Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein--who has voted recently for things like telecom immunity and unwieldy blanket copyright legislation--introduced this stupid bill in May that would force electronic voting machines to print out a record of your vote as some sort of receipt. Here are the problems with that:

• The legislation would not go into effect until 2012 (2 years after I've voted Feinstein's dumb ass out of Congress and 4 years into the Presidency of whoever wins this November), so it doesn't actually do anything of any use to anyone right now. Way to posture on empty promises again, Feinstein, you jerk!

• A machine's "source code" is the software programming that outlines, "When a user does this, the computer responds by doing this." The source codes of these machines are proprietary; that means that the companies who write these codes into the machines (like Diebold, owned and operated by Republicans) will not let anyone see the codes. Their defense is, "If we were to show you the code, someone might steal it, and then our company would no longer be competitive in manufacturing voting machines." (Heaven forbid.)

Hey, Dianne Feinstein, someone at one of these companies could write something into the code that said, "Change an Obama vote to a McCain vote, and then print out a receipt that says, 'Obama'," and no one would ever be able to catch it.

Now that I've worked myself into a good rage, let's talk about exit polling for a second. Exit polling is when someone goes out and asks voters immediately after they've cast their votes: "Who did you vote for?" and records the results. People tend to, well, not lie when asked about something they've just done, so these stats are remarkably reliable. Funny as it might sound, this simple technique is used internationally by organizations as big as the U.N. as a tool to gauge whether an election is rigged; if the exit polls don't match the polls themselves, something is amiss. For instance, let's say I won by 46% in the exit poll but only 39% in the actual election; that would indicate my opponent had stolen votes. You can see how even a seemingly small percentage--just a couple of points--makes an enormous difference.
I bring this up because 2006 saw the defeat of two incumbent Republican Senators, George Allen of Virginia (the "Macaca" guy) and Conrad Burns of Montana. These guys were defeated by very narrow margins--so narrow that they were entitled to state-sponsored recounts (i.e. they wouldn't have to pay anything for them). Even though they both could have asked for recounts--free of charge--neither accepted, each conceding the race to his Democratic challenger. Everyone wondered, why? Why would these morally bankrupt, thieving, lying scumbags who would stop at nothing to win suddenly have a change of heart and gracefully step into the shadows?

Well, because their exit polls were off! Challenger Jim Webb (full of awesomeness) beat Allen in the exit poll 52%/47%; the election itself yielded a victory of only 49.6%/49.2%--a five percentage point discrepancy. Challenger Jon Tester (full of super-uprising-awesomeness) beat Burns in the exit poll 53%/46%, while the election itself was 49%/48%--a six-point discrepancy. Just about everywhere else in the country saw accurate exit polling that year--a huge step up from the 2004 elections and partially the effect of the rejection of electronic machines in some places; however, these two places had voting machines, the only electoral tools that could have possibly produced errors such as those stats--errors far beyond the human capacity to have been that wrong by accident.

Here's my point: any recounts in those areas would have required the manufacturers of the systems to reveal their source codes. They would have had to go inside the machines to expose not just which votes were logged for whom but exactly how they got logged inside the system. Burns and Allen, Republican jokers both, knew this and couldn't concede fast enough to protect their shadowy conspirators from having to demonstrate exactly how their machines took all those Democratic votes and turned them Republican magically. (For a fantastic and in-depth look at this, please visit this truly awesome article on InTheseTimes.com.)

Are you still not convinced voting machines are a bad idea? Really? Fine. Watch this Princeton prof. hack into a machine in one minute:

This electronic machine monkeybusiness is still legal, everybody, because Congress has been sitting on its lazy ass passing things like making November National Methamphetamine Awareness Month. I mean, really! I am a total stoner, and I can only imagine if there were a "Marijuana Awareness Month" to alert people to the dangers of smoking weed. Let me tell you, hardly anyone is more aware of danky herb than I am, and if I were to hear people talking about awareness of the ganj day in and day out, I would compulsively have to smoke bowlz. Oh, Congress!

But I digress. Some places have been passing local resolutions to ban electronic voting machines, and we should all pressure our local elected officials to do the same. Check out what the Deputy Secretary of State in West Virginia (a Republican) had to say:

"Sometimes machines can become miscalibrated when they are moved from storage facilities to early voting areas," Bailey said Friday. "We get a couple of calls about this each election year."

Miscalibrated! Like one of those pesky zeroes in the software code accidentally flipped to a "1" when someone shook the machine too hard! That makes total sense! And even assuming that could happen, she obviously suspected it could happen and didn't care--didn't bother to recalibrate any machines or check to see if they were working beforehand. Well, exactly! She's a crooked-ass elected official!

Look, O.K.? you don't want this to happen:

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

In other election fraud news, in the midst of all this ACORN bullshit is a real story--an actual arrest in California:

SACRAMENTO (L.A. Times) -- The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that all signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California. His firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM, collects petition signatures and registers voters in California and other states.

So please don't get distracted by the Republican crocodile tears about Democratic voter fraud. They are afraid they are going to lose, so they are trying to claim foul play in a desperate last-ditch attempt to garner sympathy (or something)--"Look, Obama stole the election before it even happened!" Give me a break. Look at the headline of this article. Go ahead, I'll wait. Now look at the data I've just given you. What can you infer? That's right, Republicans are covering up lies with more lies plus extra-special fake outrage. These crooks acting all offended make me sick.

So I said it up there but I will say it again: go visit Steal Back Your Vote.org. They can't steal the election if we all turn out!

Lesbian Politics: Is Gay Marriage Good for McCain?

MotherJones.com has a very interesting article this week entitled "Will Gay Marriage Help McCain?"

Much has been said about the impact of the gay marriage debate on political discourse. Senator Dianne Feinstein notoriously said in 2004 that the efforts of our community had been "too much, too fast, too soon." This was echoed by many who argued that Kerry's defeat lay in the hands of gay couples who united a base of "fiscal conservatives who see promoting marriage as a way to reduce state dependency, anti-gay voters who quail at the notion of same-sex unions, right-wing Christians who seek to enforce biblically determined family law, and the mass of voters anxious about the instability of marriage" (cite). As Democrats wailed that gays had ushered this motley conservative crew into the ballot boxes to vote Republican, the 11 states that passed anti-marriage initiatives that year did so without showing any actual boost to Bush in the polls.

Despite this, the primary LGBTQ community strategy to combat homophobia and gender discrimination at the polls has relied most heavily on legislative methods (i.e. legal decisions by judges) rather than popular votes. Barack Obama's rhetoric about gay marriage being a states' rights issue might offend many of us, but his determination to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act would mean that the question of gay marriage would once again fall not to the states and their voters but to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bench might lean a little to the right at present, but we cannot deny that most of our gains--even in domestic partnerships--were achieved by judicial decision and not by popular vote; the same can be said for the majority of civil rights triumphs. E.g., 94% of whites polled in 1958 did not approve of interracial marriage, and courts legalized it anyway in 1967. I'm sure there must have been people then, too, griping about "activist judges legislating from the bench," but can anyone deny the value of that landmark ruling?

The MotherJones.com article poses the question: "Should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box?" The answer I infer from reading the article is, maybe not! Consider this: a Quinnipiac University poll from September 2008 shows that 55% of Florida voters polled support their prospective gay marriage ban (margin of error ±2.6%); however, a Rasmussen poll from this week shows only 46% of Florida voters support John McCain (margin of error ±3%).

From whence does this disconnect come? Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign, is quoted as having said: "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this. [. . .] Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."

Two recent Gallup polls indicate that even as the perceptions of homosexuality become increasingly tolerant, the idea of gay marriage lags behind in popular acceptance. Why is this?

Some people have argued that anti-marriage sentiment is not homophobic but rather about preserving one of the last vestiges of traditional stability in an increasingly unstable world. Others like Jonathan D. Katz, Prof. of Women's and Gender Studies at Yale, have said, "This isn't about lesbian and gay Americans being treated equally, which is a constitutional guarantee. It's not about that. It's about making money, wedge issues, forging boundaries. It's about dividing this country." Apart from these seemingly well intentioned or cynical foes, you and I can also recognize our homophobic detractors when we see them, whether they identify themselves that way or not.

Even with these traditional opponents, it appears that change is imminent. Some have started to take issue with anti-marriage initiatives as they affect gay and straight couples alike, preventing household diversity not only in gay relationships but also in those of foster parents, adoptive parents, and any number of other "nontraditional" living arrangements. A federal judge actually struck down a Nebraska anti-marriage initiative on these grounds in 2005. Similarly, a generational shift is occurring that shows younger voters have a more favorable view of gay marriage than their predecessors, and the percentage of under-30 voters with a favorable opinion increases each year. Our prospects improve as more tolerant voters come of age.

Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Richard Kim of The Nation also points out: "The premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a 'threat to civilization,' the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether." In other words, being liberal about stuff just isn't that politically dangerous anymore.

In response to Dianne Feinstein's "too much, too fast, too soon," I point to Prof. Katz again when he says: "We did not put gay marriage on the front burner of the national LGBT agenda; it was put on the agenda by the right and we had no choice but to respond." I believe that as more voters realize that their woes (unaffordable healthcare, unfair wages, increasing disenfranchisement, and undereducated children to name a few) are a direct result of the predatory behavior of the Bush administration, powerful lobbies, and underqualified cronies, they will feel less inclined to blame their eroding security on the queers. Even if this realization does not take place this election cycle, an Obama presidency could make all the difference, putting the fight back in the courts where it belongs.

Doesn't it cheer you to think the day might be here where it is no longer politically expedient to throw us under the bus? when it might expose one as a hypocrite to oppose us? when discrimination and hate would keep one from achieving office? Let us march with our allies to the polls on November 4, secure in McCain's ignominious defeat, chanting all the way: "Let Freedom Sting!"

Obama Needs You and Your Laptop

My blood is racing from all the free coffee down at the Los Angeles Obama campaign headquarters where I spent four hours making phone calls today. To be sure, my.barackobama.com is a great resource for making calls from home, but after Obama's lame vote for the bailout plan this past week I don't have enough love for him right now to rack up charges for him on my cell phone. If you are a frequent reader of my posts you also know what a sucker I am for venues where other hot politically savvy young ladies might be chillin'; also, I am way broke right now, and I knew they would have free food at the office. So I signed up at california.barackobama.com to let them know I was coming, and they gave me a selection of shifts to work.

Now how many of you out there hate being on the phone like me? I don't know if it's a sad comment on lives that are increasingly isolated through technology or if it's just my antisocial tokhes, but I dread making phone calls--even to my best friends. I have smoldering thumbs from all the texts I send. It's nothing personal; I just prefer to reserve my "Hey, how are you?" chitchat for family and sick people. I especially hate calling people to ask them for things, so I was totally kicking myself when the head organizer at the campaign headquarters today asked me if I wanted to do data entry instead of make phone calls.

Data entry? I am the Frickin' Queen of Data Entry (FQDE)! I'm exactly the type of anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive person who is physically pained by spelling mistakes, and every job I've ever had has purposefully indulged me with hours of solitary work painstakingly logging things with code. What could be better for an angry hermit with a mild personality disorder like me than to sit in a dark corner doing meticulous work by myself?

Well, no laptop today, so to the phones I dutifully proceeded. I sounded like a total dipshit for the first, I don't know, ten calls or so, but I got into the rhythm after a while--that, or after enough coffee I could talk to anybody. Anyway, after the first two pages they gave me (36 calls), I said to myself, "Well, that was kind of fun; I'll go back and get another couple of sheets, and then I'll bounce." That kept happening until I had run out two different campaign cell phone batteries and made over 200 phone calls. It was like political crack; I kept saying, "Just one more . . . I need to talk to just one more person in Nevada . . . then I'll quit . . ."

I am actually pleased to report that I had to sit cross-legged and hunched over on top of a small desk the whole time because the place was slammed with people wall-to-wall. Excellent variety--all colors represented, lots of people who spoke English as a second or third language, kids drawing pictures for Obama that were going up on the wall (the pictures, not the kids--and some kids were even making awesome phone calls!), college students, gays, people with disabilities, veterans--all working together and laughing and smiling and constantly moving, waves of them coming through the door and orientations for new volunteers every couple of minutes. Hooray! The organizers acknowledged, though, that they need more people with laptops to help log all the phone calls being made.

Why don't you go down there and add to the diversity at your local campaign headquarters? All happy multicultiness aside (and awesome homemade lasagna too, btw), there were totally not enough hot lesbians down there, neither with nor without laptops. That is why I'm making this appeal to y'all. Please, for my sake, go to [your state].barackobama.com to find a campaign office near you.

Lesbian politics: Free Sarah Palin!, or, These Damn Economic Rape Kits are Expensive!

I don't know if John McCain and his advisors are not so up on the computers, but John McCain's website very much still wants you to watch the debates tomorrow. The word out on the street is, we're still not so sure John McCain is going to show up.

There's a nasty rumor that John McCain wants to delay the debate with candidate Barack Obama until Thursday, which would oh-so-coincidentally keep Sarah Palin's debate with Joe Biden from going forward. Far be it from me to traffic in nasty rumors . . .

And last I checked, when a President gets bogged down in a crisis, isn't that what a Vice President is for?

In fact, I'm here today to join with Campbell Brown from CNN in saying, Free Sarah Palin! [Text below]

Campbell Brown:
Bear with me for a short rant on another subject, because frankly, I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end!

She was here in New York City today meeting with world leaders at the U.N., and what did the McCain campaign do? They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings, and they did ban reporters from asking Governor Palin any questions.

Tonight, I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong! She is tough! She is confident!--and you claim she's ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency; if that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now!

Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters--just like Barack Obama did today; just like John McCain did today; just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions. Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you're not showing her the respect she deserves.

Free Sarah Palin!

Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do, so let her act like one.

* * *

Well, that'll never happen. In the meantime: Hey, John McCain! Being President sometimes involves doing more than one thing at a time, and frankly, you are the last person on the face of the planet--excepting some of your friends and campaign advisors--that I would want rushing to Washington to fix anything with dollar signs on it. Stay away!

And while we're on the subject of the economy, dear readers, isn't it interesting how all these free market neocons sure seem pretty socialist all of a sudden when it's their buddies and companies that need government money? To make a Sarah Palin analogy, we all got raped by the economic system, and now we're having to pay for our own rape kit with our tax dollars--it's the Right-wing answer to everything, no?

We all know someone losing a home, but I don't think the "crisis" is as bad as Bush is making it out to be; the American people--the actual workers--have been suffering for months and years now, and only now that the rich people at the top are suffering does anybody in the government care. Unfortunately, the American people tend to jump to any weird conclusion based on fear, so it is in Bush's best interest to say, "WE HAVE TO ACT NOW. NO, DON'T TAKE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. DO IT NOW. GIVE ME YOUR MONEY $$$ AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER."

The scariest part to me of this whole bailout is not that the government wants my tax money--hell, they're already spending it on killing Iraqi children, so not like I have any say--the scariest part is that the Treasury wants to expand its powers.

So all of a sudden we'd have Duke of Paulson up there in the Treasury giving tax dollars to anybody--his buddies, the Bushies, his grandma. It wouldn't matter, and we wouldn't be able to say shit! I am more interested in "pressuring" my Congress people (O.K., they don't care, but) into blocking the expansion of Treasury powers than I am in keeping them from giving all that money away. (The money's not worth anything, anyway, so whatever.)

I will say in closing that banks should be engaging in development--not in speculation. Simple as that. Most states had outlawed predatory lending until Bush came along in 2003 and said, "predatory lending for everybody! Cheers!" And who has been in favor of deregulation this whole time? One clue: a privileged old man who used to be a war hero but who is now cowering somewhere from the American people's questions at a time everyone is looking for a strong leader with answers.

I personally need a President who's going to make me want to invest in American roads that are crumbling and in dumb-ass American kids who can't fucking read and in a green economy that creates American jobs that save this god-damn planet run by imperialist morons. If I can't believe in that, I've got to move, which totally bums me out because I love southern California, man.

So I'm going to watch the debates whether John McCain shows up or not. I want to hear what Barack Obama has to say; and since John McCain has suspended campaigning, that makes Huckabee the new de facto Republican nominee, right? I'm calling for Obama, Huckabee, and Palin to stand up for their country and tell us how they would lead us out of this mess; when we Americans are looking to them for answers, it's their duty. Why doesn't John McCain think that?

LGBT-Friendly Third Party Candidates

There are lots of reasons to vote for a third-party candidate when polls open on November 4^th. Maybe you just don't agree with either McCain or Obama and can't see yourself voting for either of them. Maybe you already know which way your state is going to go and you want to use your vote to support a third party. Maybe you want someone who represents all of your views, and that someone doesn't happen to belong to the Democratic or the Republican party.

Whether you're planning on voting for a third party candidate or not, it's nice to know that in the American political system you do have options. So I've done a bit of research on gay-friendly candidates. I'm no expert, and there are more third party candidates than I can shake a stick at, so if I've left out anyone you know about, please leave a comment!


Cynthia McKinney

Green Party

Vote for McKinney/Clemente this fall and you may actually make a difference. The Green Party is trying to break 5% of the popular vote this election in order to gain government funding for future campaigns. While this is a long shot, it is also a very real possibility. In 2000, the Green party's candidate Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote.

McKinney has been fairly quiet on gay issues, and has been criticized for that by gay activists. Her voting record has shown a commitment to gay issues, however. As a member of the House, she voted against an anti-gay adoption amendment in 1998 and another in 1999, voted against an amendment repealing domestic partner health care benefits in DC in 1995, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. However, she missed votes repealing don't-ask-don't-tell and including same-sex partners in the Family & Medical Leave Act.

McKinney participated in and won the support of the National Lavender Green Caucus – the Green Party's caucus centered on gay rights - and the green party platform supports gay marriage, the end of don't-ask-don't-tell, and nondiscrimination legislature that includes orientation and gender identity.

McKinney/Clemente will appear on ballots in 32 states this year and write-ins for several other states will be counted.

Ralph Nader

Nader is the other widely known third party candidate. He has been outspoken on gay rights issues and actually lists gay rights on the issues section of his web site. He has spoken for gay marriage, ending don't-ask-don't-tell, and ending employment discrimination.

Nader has been running for president off and on in elections since 1992. In 2000, as the Green Party candidate, Nader received the previously mentioned 2.74% popular vote. In 2008, Nader is running as an independent, although his campaign is being supported by several parties including the Peace and Freedom Party and the Independent Party. Nader will be on the ballot in 45 states.

Gloria La Riva

Party for Socialism and Liberation

Gloria La Riva's platform is based on civil rights – rights that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. She has spoken for gay marriage and an end to employment discrimination along with an end to the patriot act and rights for undocumented workers.

Although La Riva has never held political office and has no voting record, she has played an active role in the fight for gay rights. She has participated in several pro-gay-rights marches and in speeches has often linked the fight against homophobia with the fight against racism and sexism. La Riva was the presidential candidate for the Workers World Party in 1992, and she has been a vice presidential candidate in several elections.



Charles Jay

Personal Choice Party, Boston Tea Party

Charles Jay's political views lean towards the libertarian. Unlike many libertarians, however, Jay realizes that gay marriage may by necessity be federalized and is in support of a pro-gay marriage constitutional amendment in that eventuality. He takes libertarianism to its logical conclusion – that the government should not put exclusionary limits on the rights of its citizens, gay or straight. Jay was also the candidate for the Personal Choice Party in 2004.

Sources: candidates' web sites, votesmart.org, ontheissues.org, washingtonblade.com, advocate.com

No Feminist Love for Palin: NOW Endorses Obama-Biden

There has been much debate lately on the issue of feminism, especially since the nomination of Sarah Palin to the Republican vice-presidential ticket.

What is Feminism?
"[Feminists are] just women who don't want to be treated like shit."

In the most basic sense, feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women.

Breaking down that one very basic definition, feminism has three components. It is a movement, meaning a group working to accomplish specific goals. Those goals are social and political change - implying that one must be engaged with the government and law, as well as social practices and beliefs. And implicit to these goals is access to sufficient information to enable women to make responsible choices.


Recently, the right wing has discovered "feminism!" Well, sort of. They've managed to mint a new kind of feminism that shoves those of us who have actually been working for women's rights out of the picture. They've taken the proverbial F-word, that term we love, fight over, continually redefine, and work ourselves to the bone for, and re- appropriated it into: "Sarah Palin Feminism".

Real, true, honest-to-god feminism does not just mean fighting for women's rights. It also means fighting against sexist slurs.There have been several instances of sexist slurs being used against Palin, like VPILF (Vice President I’d like to F**k) and “can a mother be a politician?” These are certainly instances of sexism because they diminish a woman to nothing more than her body, a vessel of reproduction and something nice for men to look and play with while they continue to further their anti-woman agendas. I cannot condone behaviors such as these no matter who the target is, nor will I ever. Keep in mind though, forty years ago there was a landmark feminist protest against the Miss America pageant. Now we have a vice presidential candidate who was a former beauty queen yet is a self-proclaimed "feminist". The irony continues to mount.

Conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon decrying sexism in media coverage ever since their gal, Sarah Palin, became the target. Ironically, that whole sexism thing was mocked during Hillary Clinton's campaign. Of course you remember that many a wide-eyed pundit and commentator seemed offended at being called out on, it saying, "I don't know what you're talking about." You might even remember one in particular, David Shuster who was suspended by MSNBC for his overtly sexist remark about Chelsea Clinton.

As women, we should and we will defend against any and all sexist remarks against any women, including Sarah Palin but the botton line is, true feminists believe in voting for a candidate based on what he or she will do for women's rights and unfortunately, Palin's uterus alone isn’t enough to garner votes in the department of educated feminist women in America.

Just released yesterday was a statement from one of the National Organization of Women announcing their decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest American feminist organization. It was founded in 1966 and has a membership of 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Although it is very unusual for NOW to endorse in a presidential election, they believe Obama is an unprecedented candidate during an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama's record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation and believe he is the best candidate regarding his policies and his commitment to women's equality. This is the true meaning of feminism. It is supporting a candidate who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of men and women. You do not have to be a woman to support feminism and with that said, Barack Obama is more a feminist than Sarah Palin will ever be.

Here is the statement issued yesterday by the National Organization of Women:

STATEMENT OF KIM GANDY
Chair, National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC)

September 16, 2008

It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States.

It is no coincidence that I am joined in this announcement by so many allied organizations that collectively represent a broad and diverse cross-section of U.S. women. From teachers to social workers, from business owners to college students, women in this country are lining up behind the candidate who is out there every day standing up -- clearly and consistently -- for women. Women of all ages, races and ethnicities are coming together in support of Sen. Obama and his pledge to fulfill this country's promise of equal opportunity for our daughters as well as all our sons.

Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama's record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women's equality. For example:

On pay equity. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to end wage discrimination against women.

On reproductive rights. Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, to strengthen access to contraception and reproductive health care, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. He strongly supports Roe v. Wade and will oppose any efforts to overturn it.

On violence against women. Sen. Obama supports the continued reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- of which Sen. Joe Biden is the chief sponsor -- as well as the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, which is legislation to provide legal, medical and financial support to victims of domestic violence.

On the Supreme Court. Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights,

For more than a decade, Barack Obama has said "yes" to women's rights, while John McCain has consistently said "no" - NO to pay equity, NO to contraceptive access and reproductive rights, NO to appointing Supreme Court judges who will uphold women's rights and civil rights, NO to funding shelters and other anti-violence programs, and NO to supporting working moms and dads with policies that support work/life balance.

NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying "NO" -- No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States -- Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden.

For more information, visit the NOW PAC Obama website.

As the publisher and founder of Lesbiatopia, I stand behind the National Organization of Women and support their reasons in backing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but as always, I welcome your thoughts and comments on the matter.