As noted elsewhere, Super Tuesday resolved exactly what?
So far as I can see, about all the primaries yesterday did was to embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere (I told you I'd be using that line again), or in other words - encourage the batshit crazy fringe element.
I thought it was somewhat educational that Huckabee won big in the crazy religious states - educational in as much as it cements my conviction that I never, ever, want to live there.
I was heartened to see that my own home state of Alaska was not actually the leading Ron Paul supporter, (though he did get double digit support here) and he didn't win any state - though that is unlikely to deter him.
What I'm finding interesting this morning is the ruckus over Oprah's endorsement of Barack Obama. Obama has a lot of celebrity endorsement, from George Clooney to Scarlet Johansson, but it's Oprah who is causing a stir - because a number of women see her endorsement of a man as a betrayal of her gender. There seems to be a number of feminists who feel that if a woman is running for President, it is somehow your duty to vote for her - if you're a woman. The logic seems to be that neither the female candidate's beliefs, nor yours, matter - you, as a woman, are obligated to vote for a woman, period. I don't get this, at all. Wasn't the whole point of the feminist movement to empower woman, to give them the strength to make their own place in the world on an equal footing with men, be their own person, and to be confident in themselves enough to make up their own damned minds about what they want? This seems a major step backwards in attitude to me, and it seems to say that women shouldn't be concerned with the issues, or ideology, or political complexities- i.e. they shouldn't make their own decisions - but rather focus solely on a single simple item, gender. How is this different from saying to women, "you should vote for Mr. X, because he's just so cute?" What amazes me, is that this message is coming from women, and not men. How bizarre.
I wondered if the Queen of daytime fluff TV was maybe exaggerating just a tad, after all she does have a flair for the dramatic. Not this time. A number of feminist blogs are up in arms over her decision to back Obama, but the most vitriolic messages are appearing on Oprah's own message forum, Oprah.com.
I cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah's backing of Obama. For the first time in history, we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the white house and Oprah backs the black MAN. She's choosing her race over her gender- hypocracy [sic] at it's finest!! Oprah- you should be ashamed of yourself!!!!!
Personally, I love that last line, 'you should be ashamed...' I think most of you who have been around Stonekettle Station for a while would rightly assume that I'm not much of the Oprah watching type. Can't stand the woman actually, I don't think I've ever watched her show and I don't make a habit of reading her forum - though I did enjoy her performance as Sofia in The Color Purple. But, I'm on her side in this. Ashamed? Why the hell should the woman be ashamed of thinking for herself? Why should she be ashamed of supporting someone of her race instead of her gender, as opposed to gender instead of race - assuming that either race or gender had anything to do with her decision, which I suspect it did not. However, if race matters more to her than gender, or vice versa, or not at all - isn't that her decision to make? And isn't that the whole point of feminism in the first place?
Here's a question for these idiots, if I support Clinton over Obama, am I a traitor to my gender, or is that an arbitrary rule feminists apply only to other women?
Yeah, there's a word for this, it's called hypocrisy.