President Obama appears on the Daily Show…. and Oprah…and the View….

One of the great perks of my first internship on the Hill was the office flat screen tv angled perfectly next to my desk. It allowed me to give the pretense of working diligently while watching the daily news. It was rather handy, especially since 90% of the time I had absolutely no idea what I was being asked to do. It shouldn’t be a shock to any I give great pretense.

Perhaps it’s because I came of age with a President who wasn’t a media darling, but I remember being increasingly amazed at the number of times President Obama was out in front of the capitol giving a speech. Surely I imagined in windowless office a block from the Capitol, he’s got more important things to do. That thought didn’t get far at the time, as I definitely had more pressing things to do than judge the leader of the free world on television appearances. Working, if not pretending to work being top priority.

But then I caught this blurb on Huffington post.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obama-daily-show-jon-stewart-interview_n_775102.html)

Detailing President Obama’s stop in at the Daily Show last night. Not altogether absurd, really. It the appearance on and support of the Daily Show that truly solidified him as the candidate for young people in 2008. The Daily show was also conveniently taping right next door for their Rally to Restore Sanity this Saturday. More importantly, mid-term elections are upon us.

Except he’s the President of the United States. Appearing on a television show that recently had Katherine Heigl promoting some brainless romantic comedy. Perhaps I’m simply not hip enough, but that seems somehow wrong.

According to the CBS News Political Hotsheet, in the first year of his time in office, President Obama had 158 interviews with the press. President Bush had 21. 

He won two years ago. Shouldn’t he be done campaigning and kissing media ass? Aren’t there more serious matters to be dealt with today then whether the stay at home moms watching the View get your message?

I understand perfectly the Democratic parties need to trot him out at every opportunity this election cycle. He’s the best thing they have going for them right now in terms of public opinion. But surely the needs of the nation can supersede that occasionally? That’s what I thought his election was about, breaking down those partisan divides and doing good regardless of affiliation for the good of the common folk etc.

Unless the President is now doing exactly what I was doing in my first big girl DC internship. Because he has no idea how to do 90% of the job, but damn if he can’t present well. 

-Lady in Red

Dems losing women

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-21-women21_ST_N.htm

-Lady in Red

Mean Girls 2: Conservative Women?

Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great  reigned as Empress of Russia from 9 July 1762 until her death (17 November 1796). Under her direct auspices the Russian Empire expanded, improved its administration, and continued to modernize along Western European lines. Catherine's rule re-vitalized Russia, which grew stronger than ever and became recognized as one of the great powers of Europe. She had successes in foreign policy and oversaw sometimes brutal reprisals in the wake of rebellion (most notably Pugachev's Rebellion). She was a strong feminine leader, who took lovers in the same vein as most men of her class did. 

She's most well known for the (entirely false) legend of having died while attempting intercourse with a horse. History is chocked full of strong female leaders remembered only for their genitalia. 

It's with this in mind that I wasn't at all shocked today to wake up to another anti-female candidate article on aol news. Anyone who payed attention to the 2008 election cycle can remember the onslaught of misogynist criticisms aimed at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during their bids for the presidency.

Apparently now those "mama grizzlies" and popular conservative female candidates who've been blowing up the election cycle this year are really just overgrown high school bullies. The pretty, dumb, malicious girl at the head of the class who doesn't bother to learn your name but will claw your eyes out with her perfectly groomed nails if you even look at her boyfriend the wrong way. They care too much about having perfectly coifed hair and an attractive skirt/suit jacket combo to actually understand policy. 

On the other end of the spectrum, of course we have Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton paraded as soulless witches who may or may not feed on the spirits of young children to stay alive.  

Embracing any aspect of your femininity is proof positive that you are a shallow silly girl playing dress up. Refusing to acknowledge it makes you the villain in Grimm's fairytales. In 2010. I can't be the only one who thinks that is insane? Nobody cares whether male candidates part their hair to the left or right, or how much they spent on that Brooks Brothers suit. We focus on their ideas and legislative policy choices. Is it so absurd to want the same courtesy for female candidates. 

I keep waiting for the novelty of having ovaries while running for office to wear off, but I suppose I shouldn't hold my breathe. 

-Lady in Red

In regards to the last post

In regards to DC GOP Girl's latest post, I would respectfully agree to disagree. Also, how does pay rate relate to our discussion? Moreover, the purpose of this blog is to merely discuss the issues at hand in an open dialogue and not to make personal attacks. This hyperpartisanship has largely contributed to issues facing our nation and I originally proposed this blog to offset it.

- Pearls in Power

Gender Shift

This morning, as per my routine, I grabbed a copy of Politico at Starbucks. When I saw the front page, I winced at a front page article: "Democrats Fear Gender Shift" with pictures of Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsey Markey (CO-04) and Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15) campaigning.  According to the article, "nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable."

But if (knock on wood), the GOP takes back the House what would that mean to women?

The "Mama Grizzlies" candidates, such as Sharron Angle and Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell, endorsed by Sarah Palin and running for Congress are overwhelmingly pro-life. Yet, they claim to embody the "authentic feminism." Sorry Sarah but last time I checked, feminism meant a doctrine that advocates for equal rights for women. Yet, under your brand of feminism, I can't even have control over my own body? REALLY?  Hey Mama Grizzlies, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

- Pearls in Power