Those who are trying to get the media (and the general populace) to think a little harder about how we treat women in general, let alone in public life, are suddenly personae non grata.

I’ve always loved Howard Dean, and in reading the article you reference, I remembered why all over again: “But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired.” Go, Howard!

So while many voters — not just women — have been saying the same thing Dean did, they’ve been accused of every thoughtcrime imaginable by the other side’s supporters. Or called angry rattlesnakes…as I quoted in my post. I guess it’s ok to say it if you’re an older white guy in a leadership position, though. (Eye roll)

I’m (generally) ok with Obama. It’s not like he’s going to roll back Roe or stock the Supreme Court with Scalias. What I don’t like about him is that his supporters frequently don’t seem to know anything about his actual platform or what he intends to do. It’s this great big nebulous cloud of “well, he’s inspiring” and that’s it, end of story, no need to think on it further. And the media has encouraged this: it’s an easier story to sell than in-depth policy coverage.

I’m sure the comeback from their camp is that it’s not about his supporters, it’s about him. Well, no. Supporters end up in positions of power in any administration.

If there’s a positive side to any of this, I think it’s that it’s cut the number of political sites I read significantly. After some of the childishly vicious nonsense I’ve read on DailyKos this election cycle, I can’t say I much want to check in there at all. I self-edit an awful lot of what I say online, but some of the commenters over there have got no internal filter whatsoever.

I read Dumenco’s piece and I have to say I think he’s right. When money enters the equation it all changes.

Those of us on the long tail see a different world from those on the short list.

B’shalom,

Jeff