The marketing of conservative women by the Right is even more boldly impressive when juxtaposed against the Democratic brand today. You’ll understand after you read Rick Pearlstein’s acerbic assessment of the new Democratic logo, which is emblematic of the 2010 malaise. It’s the manifestation of the weakness of the Democratic Party in the era of the diminishing Obama presidency that we can only hope will find a second wind.
Dan Baltz asks can women save Democrats this year? It’s a good question, with answers unsettling right now:
But there are obstacles this year. Democrats do better among unmarried women than among married women. But unmarried women have been hit hard by the recession and may be more difficult than usual to motivate. “They’re in tough shape, and they’re hard to get energized,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.
In a real wake up call, the San Francisco Chronicle has no endorsement for U.S. Senate, going further to say: The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. [...] It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose. Considering Ms. Fiorina’s outsourcing, plus her controversial tenure at HP, this is extraordinary.
After Hillary Clinton’s historic presidential candidacy, which finally inspired Republicans to consider a woman for their national ticket for the first time in history, it’s the Right who has taken the energy ignited by Hillary’s campaign and capitalized on it. Sarah Palin is now leading a new movement, something far beyond what’s been done before, particularly by a woman, which has the Right’s anti feminist femmes working for their place on the political stage. It sounds like “Fire from the Heartland” gives them lots of help. But, unfortunately, many conservative women, including Sarah Palin, are using the same stale, over the top rhetoric that unhinged males have used forever, with some referring to Pres. Obama as a “gangsta” and running a “gangster government” to get their point across. This type of shrill won’t wear well over time. But in 2010 it matches the heat of the moment.
This conservative anti feminist revolution comes at a moment of optimum leverage, when Independents are looking for candidates, with many women disgusted at the men running things, but also at a moment when reproductive health care access no longer enjoys enthusiastic support and defense, including on the Left. Medical pharmacology breakthroughs, new abortifacient products, as well as abortion rights advocates believing that Roe v. Wade has secured women’s freedoms forever, even if the Democratic health care bill proved otherwise.
Today’s women are more focused on different fundamental life issues, starting with the economy, with women’s role in the family’s financial life much larger today.
Then there is education, which is front and center with the debut of “Waiting for Superman,” with Oprah Winfrey doing strong and provocative coverage of the public education debate. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are doing a townhall at 8:00 pm eastern on the subject. Democrats having to face that the teacher’s unions must change and compromise, because our schools aren’t cutting it and neither are the unions. It’s one issue where a real battle is brewing and rightly so.
Of course, conservatives ignore that lower income women have none of the options being hailed by their candidates. Conservative women still part of the Republican Pick Yourself Up By Your Own Bootstraps contingent, which leaves a lot to be desired for those less fortunate. What it means for women around the world is a wider conversation all together.
It’s no surprise that David Bosse is involved in the new film. The man who changed campaign finance laws by making a film vilifying Hillary Clinton, now is helping to re-brand conservative women, using Sarah Palin as the poster woman, with the crone image of Phyllis Schlafly a thing of GOP’s pent up past.
Garance Franke-Ruta has done a rundown review.
Proclaiming itself “the first-ever film to tell the entire story of the conservative woman in her own words,” “Fire from the Heartland” is a dizzying and nonstop montage of interviews, historical reenactments and the cinematographic equivalent of stock images, vividly filmed.
The goal of the film was for moderate and independent women viewers to come away from it and say, “these women are not the crazy harridans they are portrayed as on TV,” Bannon said.
It tells the story of 15 conservative women activists, politicians and commentators, including: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Dana Loesch, Michelle Easton, Sonnie Johnson, Jenny Beth Martin, Michelle Moore, Jamie Radtke, Deneen Borelli, Janine Turner, and Reps. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), and Bachmann.
Sections focus on their family histories, values, and political takes. And the film pounds out a litany of buzzwords, steady as a drumbeat — government dependency, bailout, false hope, political payoffs, foreign countries, government employees, labor unions. Suggestive images of metaphors and stories provide visual punch to the narrative interviews — a mouse eating cheese (as government is mentioned), a snake flicking its tongue at an apple (Obama), burning cash, an exploding television (morality), French President Nicolas Sarkozy (Obama “wants to turn America into Western Europe,” says Ann Coulter), falling dominoes (debt, the economy), a computer-generated shark swimming in circles around a U.S. dollar, a burning financial news page, roaring bears (Mama Grizzlies), an eagle with outstretched claws.
At times, the visual intensity almost drowns out the message. But it still comes through loud and clear — conservative women, in their own words, redefining what it means to be a woman in politics. It should be a hit with conservative groups on college campuses.
Christine O’Donnell, whose candidacy is turning into a nightmare, and Sharron Angle, who is still tied with Harry Reid, two of the most embarrassing conservative women currently in the limelight, while Liz Cheney is no where to be mentioned.
…and still the Democrats have no answer to the Right’s anti feminist campaign. Emily’s List doing their best, but still needing a lot of help in the branding and marketing department.
It’s a perfect conservative storm coming at a moment of political opportunity for women on the Right, which upon Barack Obama’s presidential win, and Hillary Clinton’s rise to State, was unthinkable two years ago.
The Left can’t win in 2010 without women, especially if minorities stay home, considering Democrats are losing blue collar men.
The Right is targeting women in a whole new way this year, mostly thanks to the energy generated by Sarah Palin, going all the way down to the college level. It’s not like Democrats don’t have their stars, many more than conservatives and with a far deeper bench, it’s just they don’t market them at all. It’s really hard to believe with all the fabulous Democratic females, which have outpaced the Right for years, that we’re still waiting for our trumpet.
The elite Democratic boys club is being outplayed.
I’d warn that somebody better wake up, but considering the Democratic logo that was just unveiled I’d say a coma has set in.
This post has been updated.
Taylor, you are doing your part. You are baning the drum loudly, but it does not appear as if any Democrats are listening or hearing.
I have so much to add here, but I just wanted to say, thank you for what you do Taylor.
PS. I’m happy you too, notice the horrendous logo Democrats have rolled out. I mean, a “D” in a circle, like a bulls-eye? And the sight has no patriotic themes, whatsoever, Flags etc. It’s like “Please make fun of this.”
Let me just say to both of you, Ramsgate and Aubry, I love you feminist males. Unfortunately you’re right, they’re not only NOT listening, but the logo seems to illustrate they’re totally paralyzed. I hope everyone reads Rick Perlstein’s piece. He’s a terrific historian, his books on Goldwater & Nixon simply breathtaking.
It’s really hard to believe with all the fabulous Democratic females, which have outpaced the Right for years, that we’re still waiting for our trumpet.
It won’t happen amidst the elite Democratic men’s world we have today, led by Obama’s frat boy White House.
I realize that the left has been testostrone driven since my earliest awareness of politics. The anti-war movement was all about the fate of my generation’s men after all.
But nothing prepared me for the level of misogny coming from the left during Hillary’s run for President. It was relentless and shocking and some of it came from women. It changed forever my opinion of many people, from the media, to bloggers, to the Democratic establishment, to people I know in my own life.
The “she must get out now” meme was but one line of attack but it examplifies the enormous resistence to a female leader of the country on the left.It started right after Iowa and never abated;pundits,party leaders,political writers. This never happened to a man in the Democratic Party many of them taking the fight to the floor of the convention.
That women on the right have risen out of the ashes of their own party after the beating they took in ’06 and’08 should be an example to women on the left for the wave washing out the Dems in 2010.
Republican men had lost heart so the women just picked up the ball, without permission, and ran with it.Interesting to note that the majority of the misogny coming at them is coming from the left as well.
Liberal women really need to throw off the shackles of the Democratic Party, stop expecting anything from them and strike out on a different path.The fact that the issues that liberal women care about have been progressive in nature should not bind them to a party that pretends to care about these issues but always disappoints.
Sarah Palin did not wait around for the male establishment on the right to raise her up,she saw an opportunity and ran against the establishment
and fired up her “mama grizzlies”. We will see how it all plays out but so far she has the males in her party by the short hairs.
Taylor, there are lots of us male feminists out here. If any of you feel like blubbering in your Sunday night wine, please read about
Brazil on the brink of history at https://twitter.com/rickroberts/status/25608254092. This is what justice looks like.
As for this fall, I ain’t votin’. Come what may. I am sick of giving a shit. Instead, I will tend my winter vegetables, my two chickens, and read for pleasure. When armed revolution comes, call me. I’m there. Without that, nothing changes.
This foolish, vapid country elected that empty suit thug and his thugs, and lookie what it has wrought. We will soon have more Republican rule. Back and forth it goes while nothing changes.
Thanks for the link to the great article. Isn’t it great to see South America rise while the US is distracted in the Middle East?
For the record, thug does not necessarily imply Black, so please don’t go there.
Does not “necessarily” imply Black, huh? I swear, you guys slay me.
oh come on ogenec. I call the Republicans the rethugs all the time.
For the record “thug” is not a term I associate with Obama. I don’t think it fits him or his Chicago crew. Shapeshifter is more like a term I would use.
Come on yourself. The issue is not thug; it is “necessarily.” The qualifier is either redundant (i.e., thug does not mean black, categorically) or problematic (i.e., thug MAY or MAY NOT have a racial connotation).
OK, I’ll bite. It MAY or MAY NOT, true. That is what “not necessarily” means. If it is the preacher in Lithonia today, the term applies. Google him. It is in the NYT today. If it is my best BLACK friend or my BLACK husband, it does not apply. Get the chip off your shoulder. Like now.
See, how easy was that? Don’t say it’s not a black thing when what you really mean is, it may or may not be a black thing. As to which, I fail to see what a black pastor from Lithonia has to do with Obama. Except, of course, that they’re both black. (Oh, and needless to say, I didn’t need to Google him.)
As for your comments below, I’ll repeat: I don’t care that you think Obama’s a thug. I doubt he cares either. What I was commenting on was the “not necessarily” qualifier, which was a bizarre choice of words for someone attempting to plead innocent of making a racially-motivated charge. Now that you’ve clarified that you intended the qualifier, there’s nothing left for you and I to discuss.
C’mon ogenec… Don’t you think you’re being a bit too sensitive here? Talk about “parsing”…
I really think rr was trying to say that he wasn’t making a racial slur.
Seems like thinkgs often get blown out of proportion — especially re: racial issues. Let’s try to move on…
Master Yoda say: “Do or do not. There is no try.” I’ve moved on. Now, physician — heal thyself.
Ogenec… You certainly are clever… I get your point… but you’re wrong.
And I beg to differ… you haven’t moved on.
You and me, dear, you and me. Me is objective case. I is subjective. Learn the language before you play with it.
Don’t wanna be called a thug, don’t act like one. Thugs from Chicago go back to the 20’s, and they certainly weren’t Black then.
Now look who’s being a thug – they aren’t all from Chicago you know.
This country is about to boil over, and my use of the word thug is what you want to talk about? Bokay. You gotta hand gun? Gonna need one in the next couple years.
I need help finding a link. There was an essay before the primaries ended that was a play on the famed “enough of that” feminist essay. It was re: Hillary. It really got my fires burning. I wish I could find it again.
Sounds like this one by Robin Morgan:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/75970/
That’s it! You da man! Oh, wait. Maybe I am a vile racist if say da when I mean the.
No, you’re not, no matter how much you’re titillated by the thought. Meanwhile, goodbye to:
– the notion that being a “feminist” means subscribing to a particular set of worldviews. Feminists come in all stripes and sizes, and it’s not apostasy for a woman (or a man) who considers themselves a feminist to not have supported Hillary. Nor is it evidence that women had internalized their own (patriarchal) oppression. How about the Occam’s Razor answer: many women (and men) just thought Obama would be a better President?;
– the weird use of sexual jargon to decry Obama: A Hillary ice breaker is sexist beyond belief, but decrying Obama as a fey, limp-wristed arugula eating metrosexual with too much sugar in his blood and balls the size of pebbles (as compared to Hillary’s GARGANTUAN balls) is just, well, stating facts;
– the notion that proof of equality requires the sublimation of another’s desires: Why should Obama have stood aside for Hillary? How is the fact that he did not do so a blow against feminism? Or women? It is passing strange for women to in one breath decry patronizing behavior and in the next demand that Obama renounce his presidential aspirations until a time of their choosing;
– too much talk and too little action. The revolution is coming, the revolution is coming, but call me when it’s here. Attitudes like that are precisely why the revolution is NOT coming — too many armchair revolutionaries. The whole issue about who is or is not a feminist rather misses the point. When asked about the negritude movement, Wole Soyinka famously replied “A tiger does not proclaim its tigritude. It pounces.” Tuco makes the same point in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: “If you’re gonna shoot, shoot! Don’t talk.” Moral: More tiger, less pussy.
That is bad when the San Francisco Chronicle won’t give a endorsement of senator Barbara Boxer. That is telling !! It seems republican women pushed the guys aside and decided to do their own thing. I will never forget about the Stupak deal. The dems have a majority in both houses and the white house and still could not pass a bill getting rid of DADT and they can’t even get a middle-class tax cut through without the blue dogs siding with the republicans. Not only that, the base gets insulted by the president and the vice president, press secretary, white house chief of staff, and others its no wonder why the democratic party is where it is. Taylor has been warning the dems for awhile whats coming if they don’t get their act together, but I don’t think the elite in the democratic party is listening at all just their fan base that will cheer for them no matter what and they are not going to know what hit them.
I call “shenanigans” on the SF Chronicle’s so-called reason for failing to endorse Boxer. Who the hell has the paper endorsed in her prior elections? If the paper has SUDDENLY decided that she “has failed to distinguish herself” in her 18 years, then who did they endorse in the previous campaigns? I’ve got a feeling the Chronicle is worried about losing either readers or advertisers by offering an endorsement. Even more telling is how they frame their cowardly decision: ” It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose.” Folks, it’s NOT fucking rocket science–you endorse the candidate who backs the causes you support and don’t endorse the candidate who backs causes you oppose.
Frankly, the Chronicle deserves to go into the wastebin of history when their editorial board doesn’t recognize that. You ONLY refrain for endorsing when/if you genuinely believe that both candidates will do a good job. Failure to endorse for any other reason is nothing short of absolute cowardice.
As a matter of interest, folks might want to check out the Chronicle’s full editorial, then read some of the online comments. One person had a very interesting comment, “Is this an editorial for the United States Senate race or High School student counsel?” It does seem more than just a bit bizarre that the editors decided that they can’t endorse Boxer because she is, as another commenter notes, “an uninspiring persona.” Hmm, you have to wonder (based on that) if the Chronicle didn’t just happen to endorse a certain Democrat (last name starts with “o” and ends with “a”) SOLELY because he was an “inspiring persona” and they’ve not gotten over it just yet.
A Senator’s election should not be based on their level of distinguishment. Hell, using that as a prerequisite for an endorsement would eliminate virtually EVERY candidate running for the US Senate this year (which really might not be such a bad idea). As I noted in the previous post, you endorse the candidate who most closely aligns with your own views; it’s never going to be 100%, maybe not even 75%, perhaps as low as 51%–but as long as there’s more agreement than disagreement, then that’s the candidate for you. And if you’re willing to vote for a candidate with whom you have MORE disagreement, then you really have no business complaining when that candidate wins and puts his/her plans into action. (I understand disenchantment with this year’s candidates, but I also believe that these radical right-wingers posing as populists–especially when they’re being funded by the very corporations they claim to oppose–is NOT the answer for the good of this country.)