Equal Bashing Time

The TMI Tuesday questions were a little lame this week, so I decided to post about every one's favorite topic - politics - instead!

Last week I spewed regarding Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama. How appropriate that Gloria Steinem is endorsing Hillary Clinton - now I can give Obama and Clinton equal time!

First, let me say that I do not like Gloria Steinem. I believe she has done more to hurt the women's movement that she has to help it. Like any other quality, feminism, when taken to the extreme, is radical and damaging. Steinem is no exception.

If Hillary was hoping Gloria's appearance at the Women for Hillary event in Texas was going to help her, she should have looked at Gloria's speech notes beforehand. If you haven't heard, Steinem decided to "call out" McCain and his experience as a POW.

Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.” You are kidding me, right? I would think that spending over five years "jailed" in a bamboo cage should show, at the very least, commitment and dedication to one's country. It also might just make him better qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the world's greatest military, not that it matters …

Steinem went on to say, “Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” The audience laughed - LAUGHED!

My response to Steinem would have been, "How does being married to a former president serve as any qualification for being the next president?"

Of course, the Clinton campaign immediately disavowed Steinem's words and said they have the utmost respect for John McCain's military status.

Racism or Gender Bias?

Yes, there are a few more issues than that surrounding the Democratic race, but I was quite surprised to learn that Iowa Democrats supported a black candidate above a female candidate, and not by just a smidgen.

I find this interesting, especially when the media bombards me with tales of inequality based on race. Is it because Barack isn't really black? His father is Kenyan (not a descendant of slavery) and his mother is white - maybe that makes him more palatable? His platform isn't all that different than Hillary's - they are both touting a universal health care plan and withdrawal from Iraq. Sure, the details are a bit different, but the outcome is the same.

And what does this say about women in positions of political power? There are women who hold what I would consider to be far more powerful positions than President - two of them are U.S. Supreme Court Justices for goodness sakes. I heard rumblings on the news today of this country wanting ... needing ... an alpha-male for president. Really? Or is this just because Hillary is a bad candidate?

My take on this? I am one of the many people who don't like Hillary, I don't like her politics, bust mostly I don't like her, and I know why I don't like her - she hasn't mastered the art of phony. She still comes across as phony unlike Barack whose phony is refined and looks politically sincere.

If you want to be a successful political candidate, you better figure out how to convince the masses that the lies you speak aren't as bad as they will turn out to be. It isn't about race or gender, but about who is the best liar, and Hillary still looks like a liar.